Re: [VRRP] Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report

"Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata@checkpoint.com> Fri, 05 December 2014 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stata@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AB51A8AB2; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:27:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 zObxd38RQA3o; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us.checkpoint.com (usmail2.us.checkpoint.com [209.87.220.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (112/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E1441A8AB4; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:27:22 -0800 (PST)
x-m-msg: CPCHECK
Received: from us-ex10c.ad.checkpoint.com (us-ex10c.us.checkpoint.com [209.87.220.100]) by us.checkpoint.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB51R6B0010368; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:27:09 -0800
X-CheckPoint: {548109EA-0-8ADC57D1-C0000002}
Received: from US-EX10MB.ad.checkpoint.com ([fe80::6869:aef1:9ce3:14b8]) by US-EX10C.ad.checkpoint.com ([2002:d157:dc64::d157:dc64]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:27:05 -0800
From: "Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata@checkpoint.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "vrrp@ietf.org" <vrrp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [VRRP] Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report
Thread-Index: AdAPxYq739rFLqf7Qhamy+PhTxIAKwAY2geQ
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:27:05 +0000
Message-ID: <70F762527E74224AB3A3BBC4AADC66A703581B41@US-EX10MB.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <0ecc01d00fc6$22b6a200$6823e600$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <0ecc01d00fc6$22b6a200$6823e600$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [209.97.117.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vrrp/10ye4Zv_90648sB-VVdB2JXeHRQ
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VRRP] Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 01:27:25 -0000

Hi Adrian,
The Errata Report is correct based on RFC 5798. 

Thanks
kalyan

-----Original Message-----
From: vrrp [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 5:28 AM
To: vrrp@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report

Second appeal for help. Also including the Routing Directorate.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vrrp [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 18 November 2014 18:24
> To: vrrp@ietf.org
> Subject: [VRRP] Help needed with a VRRP Errata Report
> 
> Hi VRRP enthusiasts,
> 
> A report has been submitted against RFC6527, "Definitions of Managed 
> Objects for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 (VRRPv3)". 
> You can see it at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6527&eid=4168
> 
> The essence is that the Description clause of the 
> vrrpv3OperationsAcceptMode object appears to limit its meaning to IPv6 
> addresses. However, section 6.1 of RFC 5798 describes Accept_Mode as applying to IPvX which implies IPv4 or IPv6.
> 
> Instruction 635 does appear to be limited to IPv6, but instruction 650 
> is clearly relevant to both IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> I think the report is correct.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> vrrp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Email secured by Check Point.