Hi All, I took a look at the list thread Ketan references at the bottom of the proposed erratum. It seems pretty clear this would be a technical change vs. the WG consensus when the document was progressed, and should be rejected (see https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ #7). The appropriate way to pursue this looks to be an update or bis.
If there’s any disagreement, please let me know (and let me know why you think it’s appropriate as an erratum). Thanks, —John > On Apr 2, 2021, at 8:29 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5185, > "OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6506__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WPFiufTtTdnWpOVBJkxDMATvZslLDxV_ss4NJ_eazUR-7R1mCBVtZ5hadu8NhQ$ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > > Section: 2.7 > > Original Text > ------------- > Multi-area adjacencies are announced as point-to-point links. Once > the router's multi-area adjacency reaches the FULL state, it will be > added as a link type 1 to the Router Link State Advertisement (LSA) > with: > > Link ID = Remote's Router ID > > Link Data = Neighbor's IP Address or IfIndex (if the underlying > interface is unnumbered). > > Unlike numbered point-to-point links, no type 3 link is advertised > for multi-area adjacencies. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Multi-area adjacencies are announced as point-to-point links. Once > the router's multi-area adjacency reaches the FULL state, it will be > added as a link type 1 to the Router Link State Advertisement (LSA) > with: > > Link ID = Remote's Router ID > > Link Data = Router interface's IP Address or IfIndex (if the underlying > interface is unnumbered). > > Unlike numbered point-to-point links, no type 3 link is advertised > for multi-area adjacencies. > > > Notes > ----- > The encoding of Link Data as specified in RFC5185 is not consistent with the > base OSPF specification in RFC2328. This has resulted in different behaviors > in deployed implementations where some follow RFC2328 (i.e. the corrected > text) while others follow the Original text of RFC5185 leading to interop > issues. > > More importantly, for implementations of RFC5185, it is not possible to > determine the Neighbor's interface IfIndex unless some additional mechanisms > (that have not been specified or referenced by RFC5185) are implemented - > viz. RFC8510. > > This topic has been discussed in the LSR WG recently and this errata is being > raised to track this issue : > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/iL85WkrqhI17wUrxd-WozMQvKtE/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WPFiufTtTdnWpOVBJkxDMATvZslLDxV_ss4NJ_eazUR-7R1mCBVtZ5hYBp-ZDA$ > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5185 (draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-09) > -------------------------------------- > Title : OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency > Publication Date : May 2008 > Author(s) : S. Mirtorabi, P. Psenak, A. Lindem, Ed., A. Oswal > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
