Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309)
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 17:59 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44FF21F875D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfpolNZ43wpe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C120221F875B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14so2407051wib.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rq7gzknPjb0y0+pRXUnzOq4WoITkSMF3w5Rw/r0vnlY=; b=DKP1j1QV9a+EY3kOxgK2FtEkYaJQIgM1s0mZhcU5KTSS8QAXUlR7t6kbh2YzYnv7JF CncQDpxEufytZbMHgsgWs3t6MC0yUpA/geM5rQQpUOEq2nAIWOcUUmq8wVVDcP+L8WDz cWZA9gB6ehPcAijbChCv5AnT8CP1SiIQEndSA2QFu55pKJyQkQnLR8laHqjj+5tw/D+q ERWavrdQKHPb5UZJfqHz4w2fOTVLFW6oGsAwL8HETagJmoCY3oba3jY/Z3rV1Y72N1Vy 3LXUtTrobcBT3WNfbdo/JXQF0wLT1//mwuxOwmYi5RJzKGEgLgSN56Hsqbsy6FasCgfx 0TQQ==
Received: by 10.216.233.25 with SMTP id o25mr8667958weq.130.1344362340901; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-216-145.as13285.net. [2.102.216.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b7sm695103wiz.9.2012.08.07.10.58.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50215765.7060406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:59:01 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <20120806142829.81256B1E003@rfc-editor.org> <F4BC8694-383E-403C-886E-5A69B230BC64@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F4BC8694-383E-403C-886E-5A69B230BC64@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "<livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com>" <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com>, "<fred.baker@cisco.com>" <fred.baker@cisco.com>, "<Olaf.Bonness@t-systems.com>" <Olaf.Bonness@t-systems.com>, "<cpopovic@cisco.com>" <cpopovic@cisco.com>, "<gunter@cisco.com>" <gunter@cisco.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:59:02 -0000
Wait a minute. How can this be described as an error in 5375? 5375 was not wrong when published. The error was in 6164, which failed to formally update 5375. Surely this is a "hold for update" not "verified". Regards Brian On 07/08/2012 16:23, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > We agree that this erratum is valid. > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 7:28 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5375, >> "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5375&eid=3309 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Lívio Zanol Pereira de Souza Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> >> >> Section: B.2.2 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> B.2.2. /127 Addresses >> >> >> >> The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021 >> >> [RFC3021], is not valid and should be strongly discouraged as >> >> documented in RFC 3627 [RFC3627]. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> B.2.2. /127 Addresses >> >> >> >> The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021 >> >> [RFC3021], is valid as stated in RFC 6164 [RFC 6164]. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> Maybe just remove the section B.2.2? >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata 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 (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5375 (draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations >> Publication Date : December 2008 >> Author(s) : G. Van de Velde, C. Popoviciu, T. Chown, O. Bonness, C. Hahn >> Category : INFORMATIONAL >> Source : IPv6 Operations >> Area : Operations and Management >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > > ---------------------------------------------------- > The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. > - Marshall McLuhan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
- [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309) RFC Errata System
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… HahnC
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Alice Russo
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Livio Zanol Puppim
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… SM
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… SM
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Livio Zanol Puppim
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Benoit Claise
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Ronald Bonica
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (… Lorenzo Colitti