IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5880 (7240)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 06 November 2022 09:27 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 AC0E0C1522C0 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 01:27:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 33p93FXN40xd for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 01:27:17 -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 DE40BC1522B8 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 01:27:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 8864310D74; Sun, 6 Nov 2022 01:27:17 -0800 (PST)
To: dkatz@juniper.net, dward@juniper.net, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, jhaas@pfrc.org, reshad@yahoo.com
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5880 (7240)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jhaas@juniper.net, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221106092717.8864310D74@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 01:27:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/yEOx2LTO51zq1he6vChUOVJySqM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 01:28:27 -0800
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: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 09:27:21 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5880,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7240

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>

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
--------------
[Proposed 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).  It MUST also be re-initialized to zero 
      (No Diagnostic) when the local session state transitions to Up.

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.  However, it doesn't define under what conditions it should be re-initialized to zero.

One possible place where it may be reinitialized is when the session transitions back to Up, indicating that prior issues may have been cleared.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email