Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (6494)

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 24 March 2021 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.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 ED8523A0D50 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
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 0DhwL7CA3oDb for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk (mail-ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk [185.185.85.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF79A3A0D4E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8ikqWbAHdaYWQ8BbfRfm7m3uSmzHZz9gNVDdeDpGwic=; b=Hj4hCxo1Vb7ujgZ78aDAHXVaav w/jKtzRssV688lE/0B3Td2I4UedbGy+WxxzohIh49CHvklWwgSmMUO3YR0IbtQwSG0K/r6NCGqFS0 mgCLjH/P7M/vqghJf0dQQCXyrVD41ogHJ8PxJRh9JVu0xW5CaqNjMVi63l6bzEtl4chWmavglzl8b 9lX8SG5IT9Zkejs3oMpfGuVp0vvjWbB4aUpQUrMASfdXhtkAakXes+zzqq3tFeetdRxZjeezQvyM9 QAfExqeimqkINcUWGM8GIiuocvU+0fOpgdrFucYjq0jkPhKKAQZ1Z3COg9zYOWr2c5XIjmbk1Jyn+ Bdwqle3A==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:56714 helo=[192.168.1.11]) by ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1lPBVt-0006pr-Ns; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:58:05 +0000
To: touch@strayalpha.com
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, wes@mti-systems.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, david.black@dell.com, Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, kk@teraoptic.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20210324202900.072ECF40721@rfc-editor.org>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <8d40c87e-8e51-33c9-caf4-653b3dac2c75@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:58:00 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210324202900.072ECF40721@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: ssdrsserver2.hosting.co.uk: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/9bdofUYFEDeAgK6ggON7LI1KaoU>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3168 (6494)
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, 24 Mar 2021 21:58:13 -0000

Joe,

I previously wondered myself whether RFC3168 updates RFC791 {Note 1}.
I came to the conclusion that the authors considered that RFC3168 
updated RFC2474 (which in turn updated RFC791). Otherwise, there would 
be no reason for RFC2474 to be in the updates header as well.

There is an appendix in RFC3168 on the history of the IPv4 ToS octet:
     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3168#section-22
It shows (to me) that RFC3168 was considered to be the latest update in 
the long ancestral line of the ToS octet, rather than directly updating 
RFC791:

If it is decided that RFC3168 updates RFC791, then I think RFC3168 ought 
not to also say that it updates RFC2474.



Bob

{Note 1}: When I submitted the erratum to RFC3168 that added RFC2003 to 
the Updates header:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2660


On 24/03/2021 20:29, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted 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/eid6494
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
>
> Section: Header
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 793
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Updates: 2474, 2401, 793, 791
>
> Notes
> -----
> This is the first standards-track RFC to assign the two unused bits of the IP TOS byte to ECN. Granted it was suggested in RFC2481, but that was experimental and unable to update RFC791 because it would create a downref.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> 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/