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

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
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 DF2F83A12E9 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Dixa_rQgua4y for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 F3DB13A12C8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id z136so115372iof.10 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rsqckzKVkx2aH+9Aiaz6V7SBuTF6c7uUicrFSjO2nBE=; b=CKzq4EqwnggrtKx+XLdrpO3ToYyG0OUhzY2PiFrHhX1pviBDWcLpcAhyA+FuypATaN TqqQjouFQOWWq5RrV5LAYNkoeCgNYBRfqWB/6hMXWtW0wJyIli7e0S7+3TKWLx1SCupa Ov3jP5UZTs5dlJ8kVdoC1k+GMfNq/BwjXK+UrOJweX7pLSsXvu0kGKpHtQ577Uian+z8 uVNPCx4hSmtkk9ess00HQCsIqgLESaQVLkaRf94flTxDpm3KkFgxk5pU5E3MYMKgr90e EyEn44yvURNexcFWAdppJGZDsXFYdHjwXbtTJLNL0PmxHKVoTXhVudpvMeIw9ebwIR+t B14w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rsqckzKVkx2aH+9Aiaz6V7SBuTF6c7uUicrFSjO2nBE=; b=JMwVpYXBtqXg6NLt4GNkNXhL0fO83jViJFhfGupf12WPVbPVr6Pfy5T0uFmhwnuU3q ltpqrPOBqcPETrnCM5wO1iMaG8pZ4FgHdg+35ZVqX1Eq1AI5ss26uPRA+ET+fyTvKB/P 9thI1ufY8FT6RkN2g5Tgng4hGb9uwxyXgYOg4xBrifpJzfGcRu81DLf1LwlZPES53tri DMqfsrktCPhOAasxX55Y+WiwLXZNAQt11WdJstTyqdKZJ2aOCG41ImKRbqCrk6La5Gp6 wfZGoobNDios20tVQ/5B+FXevmR9KQDbOV3oz50TXzMvJhcE8LbebCZ5Be5lx4TSaAr3 DGoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531CmvbV9RvHLe+sgk0KMRWtQxZb7/oc3FwwtHm53e0Vnp3d0w37 RJVaYTPPeZnKCB+s4cycacfA1U8UQLJ6YjKTVVA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHj4QW8ZtO9v7C3Q5StteB4aEOME/WrWHK4CrqpzndR8OqZ//DOhOKL3h9My8k5Bg9XAHw9/63WKCH7vxSNcI=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9245:: with SMTP id e5mr4371818iol.97.1616630261282; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210324202900.072ECF40721@rfc-editor.org> <8d40c87e-8e51-33c9-caf4-653b3dac2c75@bobbriscoe.net> <0B3A840A-95D2-494C-BB43-6AF14506EF6D@strayalpha.com> <b1fc1612-1f8e-0bef-8e3d-f35f68ce34b4@bobbriscoe.net>
In-Reply-To: <b1fc1612-1f8e-0bef-8e3d-f35f68ce34b4@bobbriscoe.net>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:57:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQtZTmG3TJ_1G6kCmqgBFxmkxKj-tP05-QwkbvHCr21PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Cc: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, kk@teraoptic.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000074fbf205be5110ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Wog7Mq1AWZxD_O84QSDb38fYvuA>
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 23:57:54 -0000

I'm leaning towards reject based on this discussion.

Joe, perhaps if your script also checked
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3168.html, and similar
URLs, it would catch these problems?

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 4:00 PM Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> On 24/03/2021 22:13, Joseph Touch wrote:
> > Hi, Bob,
> >
> >> On Mar 24, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> > Agreed; unfortunately, RFC2474 updating RFC791 is an errata (it wasn’t
> noted at original publication).
> >
> > This all makes it very hard to trace “what updates what”, e.g., using my
> rfc-what-i-mean script, which isn’t able to track changes that are noted in
> errata.
> >
> > (It begs whether that “updates” line ought to allow for post-publication
> revision)
>
> [BB] If it helps, the RFC Index picks up all the errata concerning
> updates, obsoletes, etc.
>
> I suspect the idea of updating the header block of a published RFC would
> result in "the system says no".
> But the grey area at the top of HTMLized RFCs could include corrected
> Updates and/or Obsoletes headers. It already adds "Updated by".
>
>
> Bob
>
> >
> >> 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.
> > OK, fair enough. I do think that leaving this as a cascading “updates”
> is unfortunate, though.
> >
> > Feel free to reject the update...
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >> 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/
> >>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>