[sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6482 (7525)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 11 January 2024 22:39 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF807C14F6AC; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:55 -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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 nAp8pK3CMHfL; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [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 20742C14F6B9; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id EA9511A2161E; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:51 -0800 (PST)
To: sachaboudjema@gmail.com, mlepinski@bbn.com, skent@bbn.com, dkong@bbn.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240111223951.EA9511A2161E@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:39:51 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/LxwAFFmV9rhXjPuqSeIderSR9iQ>
Subject: [sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6482 (7525)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:39:55 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6482, "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7525 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Sacha Boudjema <sachaboudjema@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2023-05-26 Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG) Section: 3.3 Original Text ------------- Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, addressFamily contains the Address Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only supports IPv4 and IPv6. Therefore, addressFamily MUST be either 0001 or 0002. Within a ROAIPAddress structure, the addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type IPAddress. (See [RFC3779] for more details). If present, the maxLength MUST be an integer ... Corrected Text -------------- Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, addressFamily contains the Address Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only supports IPv4 and IPv6. Therefore, addressFamily MUST be either 0001 or 0002. The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress. Within the ROAIPAddress structure, the address field represents an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix of type IPaddress (See [RFC3779] for more details). If present, the maxLength MUST be an integer ... Notes ----- Original text contradicts does not align with normative ASN.1 schema. --VERIFIER NOTES-- See discussion on the sidrops list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/cFCZREOerU-jGWWG5zh5PdXTLKE/ This erratum is filed against RFC 6482. Although RFC 6482 has not yet been marked "obsolete", this is only a formality -- draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-09 has been approved for publication and is currently in the RFC Editor queue. When editing is complete and rfc6482bis is published as an RFC, 6482 will indeed be obsolete. In that spirit, I'm applying guideline 7 from https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ and rejecting this erratum. Note that in the thread referenced above, Job says the erratum is fixed in the bis. If it's not, a new erratum should be raised against the bis. -------------------------------------- RFC6482 (draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format-12) -------------------------------------- Title : A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) Publication Date : February 2012 Author(s) : M. Lepinski, S. Kent, D. Kong Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6482 (7525) RFC Errata System