Hi Isidor,
I think we need to discuss this to really see if this is a problem.
Can you give an example where the minimum length doesn't work? I
looked through all instances of LispAddressType and would expect NULL
entries to still have some info needed in the LispAddressType variable.
Additionally, it appears that all instances of a mib variable of type
LispAddressType has an associated length field that is also constrained
to values (5..39). If the LispAddressType TC needed to be changed to
(0..39), wouldn't all those length fields need to change as well?Regards, Brian On 2/4/15 4:24 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7052, > "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7052&eid=4256 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Isidor Kouvelas <[email protected]> > > Section: 7 > > Original Text > ------------- > REFERENCE > "RFC 6830, Section 14.2 and > LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF), Work in Progress, > March 2013." > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (5..39)) > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > REFERENCE > "RFC 6830, Section 14.2 and > LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF), Work in Progress, > March 2013." > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..39)) > > > Notes > ----- > The minimum octet string length of 5 specified for the LispAddressType is > incorrect. The smallest non-empty address is an IPv4 address that is not > using the LCAF format to include an instance ID. This requires 8 octets (see > example 1 above keeping in mind that the AFI requires 2 octets). However, in > many places in the MIB definition the LispAddressType is used as the type for > attributes where “unspecified†is a valid return. For example in > lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSender, an EID prefix that is configured on a > Map-Server may not have any active registrations. To encode the absence of an > address the minimum length of zero should be allowed. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7052 (draft-ietf-lisp-mib-13) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB > Publication Date : October 2013 > Author(s) : G. Schudel, A. Jain, V. Moreno > Category : EXPERIMENTAL > Source : Locator/ID Separation Protocol > Area : Internet > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
