Hi Jonh,
On 10/05/2021 20:34, John Scudder wrote:
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).
no disagreement on my side.
thanks,
Peter
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
