[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mpls
Subject:    [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7439 (4595)
From:       RFC Errata System <rfc-editor () rfc-editor ! org>
Date:       2016-01-15 20:08:45
Message-ID: 20160115200845.C298C180206 () rfc-editor ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7439,
"Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7439&eid=4595

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Section: 3.5

Original Text
-------------
   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
   MplsLsrIdentifier.  These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE
   MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802]
   and the FRR extension [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions
   (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC]
   tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as
   obsolete.

Corrected Text
--------------
   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId.  This textual
   conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the 
   GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension
   [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for 
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries
   to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.

Notes
-----
Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier.
It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and \
MplsLsrIdentifier." It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking \
this textual convention as obsolete."

Note that the second quote refers to just one TC.

Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that the LSR \
Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP system is \
v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only. 

Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows no
change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as obsolete.

Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been abandoned in \
state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an error we could \
call a typo.

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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7439 (draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks
Publication Date    : January 2015
Author(s)           : W. George, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]