Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5036 (5597)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 02:31:31 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5036,
"LDP Specification".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5597

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Ramakrishna Rao DTV <[email-masked]>

Section: 2.5.3

Original Text
-------------
   The session establishment setup attempt following a NAK'd
   Initialization message MUST be delayed no less than 15 seconds, and
   subsequent delays MUST grow to a maximum delay of no less than 2
   minutes.  The specific session establishment action that must be
   delayed is the attempt to open the session transport connection by
   the LSR playing the active role.

Corrected Text
--------------
   The session establishment setup attempt following a NAK'd
   Initialization message MUST be delayed no less than 15 seconds, and
   subsequent delays MUST grow to a maximum delay of no more than 2
   minutes.  The specific session establishment action that must be
   delayed is the attempt to open the session transport connection by
   the LSR playing the active role.

Notes
-----
In the 3rd line, "less" is changed to "more".

The intention is to cap the maximum delay. But the existing text implies no cap
essentially.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5036 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : LDP Specification
Publication Date    : October 2007
Author(s)           : L. Andersson, Ed., I. Minei, Ed., B. Thomas, Ed.
Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:32:47 +0000

I think that technically that is a technical change to the RFC, and so 
is outside the scope of an Errata.

Whatever the original intent, the original text say that it must grow to 
at least 2 minutes. I don't think we can just change it to be a maximum 
of 2 minutes without going through the consensus process with an, albeit 
very short, RFC.

- Stewart

On 10/01/2019 10:31, RFC Errata System wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:11:44 -0500

I believe that the original text is correct. The intent is that repeated
setup attempts are delayed at least by 15 seconds and up to a maximum delay
that's at least 2 minutes (the actual maximum is at the discretion of the
implementation).

I agree with Stewart that this is outside an errata scope, and requires a
consensus RFC if a change is warranted.

I've updated Ina's email address. I also removed Bob's old email address,
as he's left Cisco and I don't have an updated address for him.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:20:17 -0500

Loa's email address was also incorrect. So I'm resending with a corrected
address for him.

Cheers,
Andy