[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (7240)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 10 March 2023 16:28 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A427C1516F2; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:28:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.84, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JjAOQC2fxmih; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 853DDC169518; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:28:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 546424C099; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:28:55 -0800 (PST)
To: jhaas@juniper.net, dkatz@juniper.net, dward@juniper.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (7240)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230310162855.546424C099@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:28:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/fHAg4M3EVfBOYKx-YV4u9ylKLmM>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 16:28:59 -0000
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC5880, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7240 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net> Date Reported: 2022-11-06 Held by: John Scudder (IESG) Section: 6.8.1 Original Text ------------- bfd.LocalDiag The diagnostic code specifying the reason for the most recent change in the local session state. This MUST be initialized to zero (No Diagnostic). Corrected Text -------------- No proposed changes are offered here. See the notes for further discussion. Notes ----- RFC 5880 at various points calls out setting the value of bfd.LocalDiag as part of state transitions. The text defining the feature calls for it to be initialized to zero. Discussion on the WG mailing list following the filing of the initial version of this erratum revealed two things: First, the text of the RFC is correct, complete, and reflects the authors’ intention at the time of writing, which really WAS that the value should only be initialized to zero but not reset to zero at any other time. Second, by not emphasizing this point, the spec although formally speaking unambiguous, left space for implementors to exercise their intuitions and creativity. As a result, several implementations are reported to reset this value to zero when the session transitions back to Up. The discussion is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/yEOx2LTO51zq1he6vChUOVJySqM/ . If a new version of RFC 5880 is prepared in the future, this question should be reopened as part of that process. It would also be possible to offer a standards track document to update RFC 5880 in this respect if WG consensus can be found for a new approach. -------------------------------------- RFC5880 (draft-ietf-bfd-base-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Katz, D. Ward Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (7240) RFC Errata System