< only as co-author of RFC9513 and contributor to RFC9352 > Hi All,
I believe a technical errata on these documents is appropriate and a bis is not necessary. As Adrian notes, "number of SIDs in SRH" and "number of segments in SRH" were used interchangeably in some places in documents that were published before CSID RFC9800. I see a technical error with this mix up in the MSD context since RFC8754 that specified the SRH talks about Segments in the SRH and Segment List in the SRH. Now, the MSD types in question are all referring to SRH (refer https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#section-4 and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9513.html#section-4) and so the errata would be something like below: - Maximum Segments Left MSD Type (no errata needed) - Maximum End Pop MSD Type : s/number of SIDs in the SRH/number of Segments in the SRH - Maximum H.Encaps MSD Type: s/number of SIDs that can be added to the segment list of an SRH/number of Segments that can be added to the segment list of an SRH .... and also s/SRH up to the advertised number of SIDs/SRH up to the advertised number of Segments - Maximum End D MSD Type: s/number of SIDs present in an SRH/number of Segments present in an SRH The actual "update" and clarifications to "Segments Left" and "Segment List" are already being done in draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification and applied to RFC8754 which is the base that these OSPF and ISIS specs are referencing. Therefore, I don't see the need for a bis for the LSR specs. Joel, have I understood your point correctly? Just my view ... Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 12:29 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > IMHO, this is not an appropriate use of the Errata mechanism. The intent > of that mechanism is to report technical and editorial errors in the > document. > > In this case, we’re talking about extending the text (albeit in an obvious > way) to cover the case of a compressed segment list. This deserves to be > in a separate document and have WG scrutiny. It would not be inappropriate > to consider a 9352bis. > > Regards, > T > > > On Nov 30, 2025, at 7:11 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) - zali=40cisco.com at > dmarc.ietf.org <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Adrian, Joel, WG, > > I agree with Adrain, "that in 9352, MSD should be interpreted to mean the > maximum number of 128-bit entries in the Segment list, and not the number > of SIDs represented". Depending on AD/ chairs preference, a clarification > along these lines can be made in draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification or > as an RFC9352 Errata. > > Thanks > > Regards … Zafar > > > On 11/30/25, 5:54 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Coming to this thread late a wilfully jumping in half way through. > > > Can I point you to draft-ietf-6man-sidlist-clarification? > > > The problem identified there is that there was originally some "wooliness" > with regard to terminology in 8754. > - Both "SID list" and "Segment list" are used. > - There is an implication (which, certainly, no longer applies) that > entries in the Segment list are 128 bit IPv6 addresses. > This is no attack on the authors (we were all in the room when the text > was agreed) and the clarification doesn't change the technology one iota. > > > I think that 9352 carried on this slight fuzziness. Again, no attack on > the authors or the technology - we all reviewed the text. > I would agree that in 9352, MSD should be interpreted to mean the maximum > number of 128-bit entries in the Segment list, and not the number of SIDs > represented. > > > Cheers, > Adrian > > > > Cisco Confidential > -----Original Message----- > From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> > Sent: 27 November 2025 11:08 > To: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO < > [email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>>; Joel Halpern < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>; > lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> > Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>; > Paolo Volpato <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>>; Bruno Decraene <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: Where to clarify RFC 9352 relative to SID containers > > > Hi all, > Pay attention that RFC 9532 is the normative document, all documents in > BMWG are informative. > > > I am not sure I have understood the context. I do not see the problem. > Compressed SID is the "SID" too. > 128bit entry inside the SRH is called "Segment List" in the RFC 8754. > Hence, no problems because names are different. > Eduard > > -----Original Message----- > From: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO > <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 13:40 > To: Joel Halpern <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>>; lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>> > Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>; > Paolo Volpato > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>>; Bruno Decraene > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>>; Vasilenko Eduard > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Where to clarify RFC 9352 relative to SID containers > > Hi Joel, > > Not sure if this would be what you are looking for (especially because is > an > outcome of BMWG and not LSR), but draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth includes > proposal of segment list scale testing that could serve for the purpose you > comment (that is, adding maximum number of 128 bit pieces as an aspect to > be considered during the benchmarking process). So maybe the point that you > raise can be included here. > > I copy my co-authors in case they want to complement with additional > comments. > > Best regards > > Luis > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Joel Halpern <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>> > Enviado el: jueves, 27 de noviembre de 2025 11:07 > Para: lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> > Asunto: [Lsr] Where to clarify RFC 9352 relative to SID containers > > AVISO/WARNING: Este correo electrónico se originó desde fuera de la > organización. No haga clic en enlaces ni abra archivos adjuntos a menos que > reconozca al remitente y sepa que el contenido es seguro / This email has > been originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or > open > attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > First, to be clear, what I am describing is NOT an error in RFC 9352. > Thus, I don't think an erratum is the appropriate way to document for > future > readers this additional aspect of the intent of certain maximum segment > depth > advertisements for SRv6. > > RFC 9352 talks about the maximum number of SIDs. However, when SIDs are > carried in compressed SID containers, the number that matters for some > (maybe all?) of the maximum segment depths is the number of 128 bit > pieces, not the number of SIDs. Apparently, several implementations > are consistent with that. It seems a bit odd to write another RFC just to > say > that. Is there some document in process that could sensibly capture this. > > (As RFC 9352 predates the Compressed SID RFC it makes sense that this case > is > not disucssed there.) > > Yours, > > Joel > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, > puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso > exclusivo > de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario > indicado, > queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin > autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si > ha > recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique > inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. > > The information contained in this transmission is confidential and > privileged > information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named > above. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, > do not > read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this > communication in error and then delete it. > > Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, > pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo > da > pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário > indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou > cópia sem > autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se > recebeu > esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente > por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] < > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
