Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 04 March 2020 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0977B3A147C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1tAaUV__wQy for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F773A1478 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p200300dee7239a0084809b28d0f22131.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e723:9a00:8480:9b28:d0f2:2131]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1j9Ytx-0005RV-42; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 19:37:49 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <fafeafaf-421b-ac68-d5e6-a61a9f7c3262@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:37:48 +0100
Cc: "BLack, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>, KK Ramakrishnan <kk@cs.ucr.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <003EC68D-9136-46A2-9044-85CCBE75FDFE@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20200304095833.277C3F4071F@rfc-editor.org> <fafeafaf-421b-ac68-d5e6-a61a9f7c3262@bobbriscoe.net>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1583347075;e9b120c5;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1j9Ytx-0005RV-42
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/43RRBLyeKFBFs8A02w-HUhjVJ9U>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:37:58 -0000

Hi Bob,

I’ve sent a note about this on tsvwg list. 

However, I now see that I got a bit confused about this. I thought this errata and 4997 would add the same RFC in updates, which is not the case as you correctly stated below.

Errata 2660 was verified a while ago and the RFC editor actually added the respective update tags for that RFC. So we could do the same for RFC2460 and RFC2473 (meaning that if “Held for update” was not correct for this one, I can request the RFC editor to revert it). However, I would like to get further input from the group if that is the correct thing to do.

Mirja



> On 4. Mar 2020, at 18:42, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
> 
> Mirja,
> 
> I don't even remember writing this Erratum, it's so old (or maybe it's me that's so old - don't comment on that tho).
> 
> The main reason for reporting omissions in the "Updates" header is to ensure that people who are responsible for implementations of updated RFCs know that they are meant to watch RFC3168 (and its updates). It would be useful if the tools view showed accepted errata to the Updates header below the "Updated by" field (in the grey area at the top of the HTML of a draft).
> 
> Any chance that this is possible?
> 
> 
> FYI, according to the 3168 errata list, there are 3 missing refs in the updates header of 3168 now. But they each have a different status:
> 
> Errata ID: 2660 Status: Verified Add "Updates: 2003"
> Errata ID: 4997 Status: Reported Add "Updates: 2460"
> Errata ID: 4754 Status: Held for Document Update Add "Updates: 2473"
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> On 04/03/2020 09:58, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been held for document update 
>> for RFC3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP". 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4754
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Status: Held for Document Update
>> Type: Editorial
>> 
>> Reported by: Bob Briscoe 
>> <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
>> 
>> Date Reported: 2016-07-31
>> Held by: Mirja Kühlewind (IESG)
>> 
>> Section: Header block
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 793
>> 
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 2473, 793
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> RFC 3168 updates RFC 2473 but does not indicate this in its header block.
>> 
>> Specifically, Section 9 of RFC 3168 defined processing of the ECN field for Encapsulated Packets, which updated section 6.4 of RFC 2473, where the creation of the "IPv6 Tunnel Packet Traffic Class" was specified. RFC3168 also updated the decapsulation behaviour of the ECN field in an IPv6 tunnel header, which had not been specified in RFC2473.
>> 
>> Note 1: As well as tagging RFC3168 with this erratum, RFC2473 needs to be tagged (in the RFC index and associated tools outputs) to indicate that it is updated by RFC3168.
>> 
>> Note 2: Originally, the "Updates:" header of RFC3168 did not contain "2003", which was added as a result of Errata ID 2660.
>> 
>> Note 3: The first sentence of section 9.1 in RFC3168 should also be modified as follows:
>> Original text:
>>    The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>>    places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003].
>> Corrected text:
>>    The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
>>    places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003, 2473].
>> Comment: 
>>    Nowadays RFC2473 would be a normative reference, but RFC3168 pre-dated the categorisation of references into normative and informative.
>> 
>> Note 4: Section 9 of RFC3168 has since been updated by RFC6040. Nonetheless, that is already correctly identified in RFC6040.
>> 
>> This reported errata has be moved to "Held for Document Update". While the reported problem is correct and needs to be addressed, it is not just an errata but a larger oversight at publication time.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC3168 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
>> Publication Date    : September 2001
>> Author(s)           : K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Transport Area Working Group
>> Area                : Transport
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               
> http://bobbriscoe.net/