[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ipng
Subject: Re: [IPv6] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8754 (7102)
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf () gmail ! com>
Date: 2023-06-06 21:10:05
Message-ID: CAMGpriWdAWgEV=Z7987d+wRSd1jALZJPbEm9F+AuHF14T+6XDA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Thanks Chris!
Re-verifying with the text discussed here.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:40 PM Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> EID 7102 is back to "reported" state.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris
>
> > On May 29, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There has been a request to engage in some word-smithing before
> > returning this to Verified.
> >
> > May I ask that it be put back into Reported state while this is
> discussed?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:38 PM RFC Errata System
> > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8754,
> >> "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)".
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> You may review the report below and at:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Type: Technical
> >> Reported by: Darren Dukes <ddukes@cisco.com>
> >>
> >> Section: 2
> >>
> >> Original Text
> >> -------------
> >> Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4.
> >>
> >> Corrected Text
> >> --------------
> >> Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4.
> >> Specifically, for the SRH, the number of segments
> >> remaining in the Segment List.
> >>
> >> Notes
> >> -----
> >> RFC8754 describes "The encoding of IPv6 segments in the SRH" where IPv6
> segments are defined in RFC8402. RFC8402 describes binding SIDs and
> adjacency SIDs for SRv6. Both these SID types identify more than a single
> explicitly listed intermediate node to be visited.
> >> The current definition of Segments Left only indicates it is defined in
> RFC8200, and RFC8200 defines it as "Number of route segments remaining,
> i.e., number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes still to be visited
> before reaching the final destination".
> >>
> >> Previous versions of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header (0-11)
> referenced RFC2460/RFC8200 and described the Segments Left field by use in
> the SRH; as an index into the Segment List. This was removed in later
> versions (12/13) to consolidate the use of segments left to be specific to
> the segment processed (now section 4.3.1). However, that removed the
> definition of its meaning in the SRH which led to the current issue.
> >>
> >> The corrected text restores the meaning of Segments Left for the SRH in
> relation to Segment List (which is not defined in RFC8200), while still
> leaving its use during segment processing to the segment definition
> (section 4.3.1 or future documents).
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC8754 (draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26)
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Title : IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)
> >> Publication Date : March 2020
> >> Author(s) : C. Filsfils, Ed., D. Dukes, Ed., S. Previdi, J.
> Leddy, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer
> >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >> Source : IPv6 Maintenance
> >> Area : Internet
> >> Stream : IETF
> >> Verifying Party : IESG
> >
>
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Chris!<div><br></div><div>Re-verifying with the text discussed \
here.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On \
Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:40 PM Chris Smiley <<a \
href="mailto:csmiley@amsl.com">csmiley@amsl.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> Hi Erik,<br>
<br>
EID 7102 is back to "reported" state.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
> On May 29, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Erik Kline <<a href="mailto:ek.ietf@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">ek.ietf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > <br>
> There has been a request to engage in some word-smithing before<br>
> returning this to Verified.<br>
> <br>
> May I ask that it be put back into Reported state while this is discussed?<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:38 PM RFC Errata System<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" \
target="_blank">rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org</a>> wrote:<br> >> <br>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8754,<br>
>> "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)".<br>
>> <br>
>> --------------------------------------<br>
>> You may review the report below and at:<br>
>> <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102</a><br> >> <br>
>> --------------------------------------<br>
>> Type: Technical<br>
>> Reported by: Darren Dukes <<a href="mailto:ddukes@cisco.com" \
target="_blank">ddukes@cisco.com</a>><br> >> <br>
>> Section: 2<br>
>> <br>
>> Original Text<br>
>> -------------<br>
>> Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4.<br>
>> <br>
>> Corrected Text<br>
>> --------------<br>
>> Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4.<br>
>> Specifically, for the SRH, the number of segments<br>
>> remaining in the Segment List.<br>
>> <br>
>> Notes<br>
>> -----<br>
>> RFC8754 describes "The encoding of IPv6 segments in the SRH" where IPv6 \
segments are defined in RFC8402. RFC8402 describes binding SIDs and adjacency SIDs \
for SRv6. Both these SID types identify more than a single explicitly listed \
intermediate node to be visited.<br> >> The current definition of Segments Left \
only indicates it is defined in RFC8200, and RFC8200 defines it as "Number of route \
segments remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes still to be \
visited before reaching the final destination".<br> >> <br>
>> Previous versions of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header (0-11) \
referenced RFC2460/RFC8200 and described the Segments Left field by use in the SRH; \
as an index into the Segment List. This was removed in later versions (12/13) to \
consolidate the use of segments left to be specific to the segment processed (now \
section 4.3.1). However, that removed the definition of its meaning in the SRH \
which led to the current issue.<br> >> <br>
>> The corrected text restores the meaning of Segments Left for the SRH in \
relation to Segment List (which is not defined in RFC8200), while still leaving its \
use during segment processing to the segment definition (section 4.3.1 or future \
documents).<br> >> <br>
>> Instructions:<br>
>> -------------<br>
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, \
please<br> >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be \
verified or<br> >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying \
party<br> >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if \
necessary.<br> >> <br>
>> --------------------------------------<br>
>> RFC8754 (draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26)<br>
>> --------------------------------------<br>
>> Title : IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)<br>
>> Publication Date : March 2020<br>
>> Author(s) : C. Filsfils, Ed., D. Dukes, Ed., S. Previdi, J. \
Leddy, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer<br> >> Category : PROPOSED \
STANDARD<br> >> Source : IPv6 Maintenance<br>
>> Area : Internet<br>
>> Stream : IETF<br>
>> Verifying Party : IESG<br>
> <br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic