I also believe the Errata should be accepted as is. This will make IS-IS consistent with OSPF (RFC 7471) as well as the related BGP-LS draft (draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp).
Given there is evidence that implementations have differed in their interpretations it seems important to note that we may have some interoperability issues until all deployed systems are updated to conform to the Errata. Should a bis version of the RFC be considered?? Les From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:53 AM To: Jeff Haas <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Olivier Dugeon <[email protected]>; [email protected]; John E Drake <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RFC Errata System <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7810 (5293) Jeff, I agree. It appears the error in the RFC has been interpreted multiple ways and I’m leaning towards the recommending the Errata being accepted as submitted given the format in OSPF (RFC 7471) and the BGP-LS TE-PM draft. It would be interesting to hear what your implementation does. Thanks, Acee From: Jeff Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:55 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Spencer Giacalone <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "David Ward (wardd)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, John E Drake <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Deborah Brungard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7810 (5293) Acee, I'm glad you've made this comment. The motivation for me reading this document and making the comment was the WGLC for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09 I'm not familiar with what my employer's implementation does, but I suspect we'll get a public declaration of this shortly. Meanwhile, you may wish to comment on the IDR WGLC on this since at least one protocol implementor (me) would be confused. :-) -- Jeff On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Jeff, et al, Speaking as a WG member: I agree there should be an Errata here but the interpretation taken by at least one implementation is to update the length to 5 rather than remove the RESERVED octet. I'd like to hear what other implementations have done. Thanks, Acee On 3/22/18, 6:49 AM, "Lsr on behalf of RFC Errata System" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7810, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid5293&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=T-sa37bq-QjZoC4jLQ0QAtNyQAPQqGdTNBvhTirOBqc&m=YfnMkYHflKhDv_k5oRXzEJV8Hnk5E4QjWZz4hQTwQe0&s=fdYU897qHDu8U5ShyCdT2Q6kYhkRxOQtHVv00lRQlv4&e= -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Section: 4.5-4.7 Original Text ------------- 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Residual Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Type: 37 Length: 4 RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use Corrected Text -------------- 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Residual Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Type: 37 Length: 4 Notes ----- In sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, a RESERVED field is in the diagram and the text. However, the length field of each of these TLVs is 4. The RESERVED field is thus not present and should be removed in future editions of this document. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC7810 (draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-11) -------------------------------------- Title : IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Publication Date : May 2016 Author(s) : S. Previdi, Ed., S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, Q. Wu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IS-IS for IP Internets Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=T-sa37bq-QjZoC4jLQ0QAtNyQAPQqGdTNBvhTirOBqc&m=YfnMkYHflKhDv_k5oRXzEJV8Hnk5E4QjWZz4hQTwQe0&s=LBwnWuN3KqtpqzqJcoJmVlzEDx5M-AHqILQBCRssmcI&e=
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
