Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6482 (7525)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

[Coming back to this after a long hiatus…]

Thanks for the reminder about 6482bis, Job. On that basis, I've rejected the erratum. [1] The submitter should, as you say, check 6482bis to see if they think a problem still exists.

Thanks,

--John

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ guideline 7.

> On May 31, 2023, at 1:39 PM, Job Snijders <job=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> I think the report is correct, and it seems we already resolved it in the -bis effort: 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-03.html
> 
> Section 4.3.1 of the -bis contains the same sentence the errata report proposed “The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress.”
> 
> The new description of ROAIPAddress also emphasises the “address” field contains a single prefix. 
> 
> It would be good to confirm with the reporter whether the description in the -bis document matches their understanding of the ASN.1 notation. 
> 
> If the -bis document as-is matches their understanding, it might mean that multiple people independently observed a discrepancy in the original RFC. :-)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> Ps. There is an “addresses” field in one structure, and in another structure an “address” field. :-)
> 
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 19:01, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:
> +sidrops
> 
> The substance of the erratum is:
> 
> - The sentence "The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type ROAIPAddress” is added at the end of the first paragraph.
> 
> This seems like an OK change although not a necessary one. If verified, it’d be as editorial Hold For Document Update. It doesn’t seem like it adds much to the spec, so I’m not inclined to verify it but could be talked into it.
> 
> - In the second paragraph:
>         - “a ROAIPAddress structure” -> “the ROAIPAddress structure” (“a” becomes “the”)
>         - The ROAIPAddress structure changes from a sequence of IPAddress, to a single IPaddress (capitalization sic) 
> 
> The submitter says this change would align the prose description with the ASN.1. However, I don’t see that — I’m hardly an ASN.1 expert, but on the face of it, this (from Appendix A, also present in Section 3) looks like a sequence, not a singleton. The word “sequence” is right there, in ALL CAPS even.
> 
>    ROAIPAddress ::= SEQUENCE {
>       address IPAddress,
>       maxLength INTEGER OPTIONAL }
> 
> As far as I can tell, this change is wrong and should be rejected.
> 
> I would appreciate a second opinion from someone more conversant with the RFC and associated technology than I am before I reject it.
> 
> —John
> 
> > On May 26, 2023, at 2:49 PM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6482,
> > "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)".
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7525__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GngQXDPNfl9uVTFUdN8h1LmYMMzXgBRp-NQTdsuPLKBo7KLOI4k9kFTNxaLsmnpNBXUj3GVFEfbA57aSAEPHFg$
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Sacha Boudjema  <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops