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

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Wed, 24 March 2021 23:00 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 E2FD43A10AD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:00:04 -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 Z2VhKSEOYtjc for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:00:00 -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 2A2D53A10AC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:00:00 -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=gytKGdjFhTp3RVQLpNZ0zc+07U7jpaIs5OGcyHy1QeA=; b=4f9a54X7Ge8Mm0uv0ruimXlfr3 0oh9U16gPCx3bfVEmGY3bGHzXN8GzX3jlfKnr6/H+pCT6Xjxzb4F+ptdngFfbGxJvYcLOLVN4azx/ AKpY7IRgOoXQI5QtECpVVfd+e7lEPjWcQx5F9i4UDlcDNcTqPQCnFC6cLvYvoIZUal69nexb3lYqH 2HDOBdRjqngUWp35kEWbwurt0MEsE5bm5+cRBZmfLStrpNvR0xx5NoE4jx75qDL4aLYirGgcL9j8+ 8U3aoR2UMh7moh7krMdnYuIOUSc4nEkLWgMA6fnTnYoXYgHS5V8T62LPrzUTszGvadEH+DUM9Eg5a GegzpM2A==;
Received: from 67.153.238.178.in-addr.arpa ([178.238.153.67]:57042 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 1lPCTl-0000j9-5f; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:59:57 +0000
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, kk@teraoptic.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20210324202900.072ECF40721@rfc-editor.org> <8d40c87e-8e51-33c9-caf4-653b3dac2c75@bobbriscoe.net> <0B3A840A-95D2-494C-BB43-6AF14506EF6D@strayalpha.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <b1fc1612-1f8e-0bef-8e3d-f35f68ce34b4@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:59:56 +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: <0B3A840A-95D2-494C-BB43-6AF14506EF6D@strayalpha.com>
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/_elXMs2U4c5n1lZZa7-VsoymUEk>
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 23:00:05 -0000

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/