Subject: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:12:58 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been verified for RFC7630,
"HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7630&eid=4509

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Johannes Merkle <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2015-10-20
Verified by: Benoit Claise (IESG)

Section: 8 and 10

Original Text
-------------
snmpModules 235

Corrected Text
--------------
mib-2 235

Notes
-----
IANA registered snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB under mib-2.235 (as advised by the MIB doctors), but the document mentions snmpModules.235 

--------------------------------------
RFC7630 (draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-06)
--------------------------------------
Title               : HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3
Publication Date    : October 2015
Author(s)           : J. Merkle, Ed., M. Lochter
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Operations and Management Area Working Group
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:23:21 +0200

Dear all,

The facts:
- The MIB doctors advised not to publish MIB modules under snmpModules 
any longer. IANA updated the registry information. See 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-61
- RFC 7360 is published with a mistake. The MIB module should have been 
published under mib-2.235 (as advised by the MIB doctors) but the 
document mentions: snmpModules.235
- The IANA registry is actually correct. snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB is under 
mib-2.235
See http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml
- Solving this issue with an errata doesn't work: indeed MIB modules are 
extracted from RFC, and used within scripts.

Discussing with Michelle (IANA) and the IESG, we had no other choices 
than obsoleting this RFC and re-issuing a new one. Hence this errata and 
draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-00. 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new/>

One change to keep in mind for the next version:
OLD:

        REVISION    "201508130000Z"       -- 13 August 2015, midnight
        DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC 7630 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>"
    ::= { snmpModules 235 }

NEW:

        REVISION     ... new date
        DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC xxxx <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>"
    ::= { mib-2 235 }

The way forward is to publish a new draft ASAP with the above 
correction, to have a one week IETF LC, and to publish the new RFC. At 
that point (and not before because we don't have a replacement RFC), we 
will obsolete RFC 7360.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:17:12 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
To: "RFC Errata System" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:23

> any longer. IANA updated the registry information. See
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-number
s-61
> document mentions: snmpModules.235

Benoit

Mutter, mutter: it is a shame that the MIB Doctors did not tell us of
this change!

I carefully checked the I-D when it first appeared and was satisfied
that the assignment was in exactly the right place, using all the
information available to me so I think that the I-D was spot on.  And
that it remained correct thoughout its life.

And of course we are now wasting valuable resources making a 'right'
'wrong'!

Is there anything else we have not been told, by e-mail, RFC or I-D,
that might waste our time in future:-(

Tom Petch

> draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-00.
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-n
ew/>
> > IANA registered snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB under mib-2.235 (as advised by
the MIB doctors), but the document mentions snmpModules.235
> > Title               : HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the
User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3
> > Area                : Operations and Management

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:27:19 +0200

Tom,
> Mutter, mutter: it is a shame that the MIB Doctors did not tell us of
This discussion was actually triggered by IANA when it tried to figure 
out the registration procedures for SMI SNMPv2 snmpModules Codes 
registry ... in relation to this draft. The MIB doctors and I were involved.

> And of course we are now wasting valuable resources making a 'right'
I share the pain, trust me.
> that might waste our time in future:-(
I don't know what I don't know.
However, when a problem is discovered, it's generally solved. In this 
case, see the update at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-number 
s-61, e.g. "[No more registrations accepted ]"

Regards, Benoit