[Coming back to this after a long hiatus…] Thanks for the reminder about 6482bis, Job. On that basis, I've rejected the erratum. [1] The submitter should, as you say, check 6482bis to see if they think a problem still exists.
Thanks, --John [1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ guideline 7. > On May 31, 2023, at 1:39 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear John, > > I think the report is correct, and it seems we already resolved it in the > -bis effort: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-03.html > > Section 4.3.1 of the -bis contains the same sentence the errata report > proposed “The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type > ROAIPAddress.” > > The new description of ROAIPAddress also emphasises the “address” field > contains a single prefix. > > It would be good to confirm with the reporter whether the description in the > -bis document matches their understanding of the ASN.1 notation. > > If the -bis document as-is matches their understanding, it might mean that > multiple people independently observed a discrepancy in the original RFC. :-) > > Kind regards, > > Job > > Ps. There is an “addresses” field in one structure, and in another structure > an “address” field. :-) > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 19:01, John Scudder <[email protected]> > wrote: > +sidrops > > The substance of the erratum is: > > - The sentence "The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type > ROAIPAddress” is added at the end of the first paragraph. > > This seems like an OK change although not a necessary one. If verified, it’d > be as editorial Hold For Document Update. It doesn’t seem like it adds much > to the spec, so I’m not inclined to verify it but could be talked into it. > > - In the second paragraph: > - “a ROAIPAddress structure” -> “the ROAIPAddress structure” (“a” > becomes “the”) > - The ROAIPAddress structure changes from a sequence of IPAddress, to > a single IPaddress (capitalization sic) > > The submitter says this change would align the prose description with the > ASN.1. However, I don’t see that — I’m hardly an ASN.1 expert, but on the > face of it, this (from Appendix A, also present in Section 3) looks like a > sequence, not a singleton. The word “sequence” is right there, in ALL CAPS > even. > > ROAIPAddress ::= SEQUENCE { > address IPAddress, > maxLength INTEGER OPTIONAL } > > As far as I can tell, this change is wrong and should be rejected. > > I would appreciate a second opinion from someone more conversant with the RFC > and associated technology than I am before I reject it. > > —John > > > On May 26, 2023, at 2:49 PM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6482, > > "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7525__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GngQXDPNfl9uVTFUdN8h1LmYMMzXgBRp-NQTdsuPLKBo7KLOI4k9kFTNxaLsmnpNBXUj3GVFEfbA57aSAEPHFg$ > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Sacha Boudjema <[email protected]> > > > > Section: 3.3 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, addressFamily contains the Address > > Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only > > supports IPv4 and IPv6. Therefore, addressFamily MUST be either 0001 or > > 0002. > > > > Within a ROAIPAddress structure, the addresses field represents prefixes as > > a sequence of type IPAddress. (See [RFC3779] for more details). If > > present, the maxLength MUST be an integer ... > > > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > Within the ROAIPAddressFamily structure, addressFamily contains the Address > > Family Identifier (AFI) of an IP address family. This specification only > > supports IPv4 and IPv6. Therefore, addressFamily MUST be either 0001 or > > 0002. The addresses field represents prefixes as a sequence of type > > ROAIPAddress. > > > > Within the ROAIPAddress structure, the address field represents an IPv4 or > > IPv6 prefix of type IPaddress (See [RFC3779] for more details). If > > present, the maxLength MUST be an integer ... > > > > Notes > > ----- > > Original text contradicts does not align with normative ASN.1 schema. > > > > 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. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC6482 (draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format-12) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) > > Publication Date : February 2012 > > Author(s) : M. Lepinski, S. Kent, D. Kong > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > > Area : Routing > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Sidrops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
