Those changes are the clarification I am asking for.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/2/2025 6:51 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
< 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
<http://40cisco.com> at dmarc.ietf.org <http://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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
Sent: 27 November 2025 11:08
To: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Joel
Halpern <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; lsr
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Paolo Volpato
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Bruno Decraene
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2025 13:40
To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; lsr
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Paolo Volpato
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Bruno Decraene
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>; Vasilenko Eduard
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
Enviado el: jueves, 27 de noviembre de 2025 11:07
Para: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [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 [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
