Hi Gregg, On 3/9/15 1:09 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/6/15 12:58 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It turns out that the discussion during review was with the >>>> upper limit. I can't find any reference to discussions on the >>>> lower limit. Authors? >>> >>> going back to check Brian - it was a while ago. >> >> Have we gotten anywhere with this check? The erratum is sitting in >> a less-than-useful state at this point. >> >> Regards, Brian > > > Hi Brian I’m really sorry about droppng this. > > > I’ve checked internal notes, authors, etc. I cannot find any record > of (nor do we recall) us discussing “minimum length.” Looking at it > now, the value of “5” in RFC7052 does not match any “real minimum > length” that we can see. > > Further, (in discussing with Isidor), the ability to return > unspecified as an empty address, hence “0” length, makes sense. > > So, again - the errate makes sense. No evidence is available to > indicate otherwise. >
Isidor and I discussed whether changing all the lower bounds of 5 to 0 made sense or if there was a smaller subset of variables that should be changed. Isidor insisted on lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength being changed, but there are potentially others. I do not want to see a slew of errata roll in over the years changing one variable's lower limit at a time. Keeping in mind, a change for one variable actually requires a change to two variables (the affected variable and its corresponding Length variable). Can the WG identify all the MIB variables that it wants changed with this erratum? Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
