Subject: Re: [pim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3973 (4635)

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:07:20 +0000

Dear pim WG:

Hi!  I need your help -- please see below.

It is true that NoInfo is not defined as an upstream interface state in
4.4.1, so I am going to accept this report.

However, I also found this piece of text:

4.4.2.  Downstream Prune, Join, and Graft Messages

   The Prune(S,G) Downstream state machine for receiving Prune, Join and
   Graft messages on interface I is given below.  This state machine
   MUST always be in the NoInfo state on the upstream interface.

While it references the upstream interface, it seems to me that the text
probably meant to say something like "the state machine MUST always be
initialized in the NoInfo state" -- or at last something not referring to
the upstream interface.

After discussion...can someone please file a new Errata Report?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 3/8/16, 10:59 AM, "RFC Errata System" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3973,
>"Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
>Specification (Revised)".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3973&eid=4635
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Editorial
>Reported by: Rui Lin <[email-masked]>
>
>Section: 4.1.2
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>Upstream interface-specific:
>       Graft/Prune State:
>         State: One of {"NoInfo" (NI), "Pruned" (P), "Forwarding" (F),
>                        "AckPending" (AP) }
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>"NoInfo" (NI) is not defined as an upstream interface state in 4.4.1.
>
>Notes
>-----
>Suggest to remove "NoInfo" (NI) here.
>
>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 (IESG)
>can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC3973 ( draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-05)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode
>(PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised)
>Publication Date    : January 2005
>Author(s)           : A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak
>Category            : EXPERIMENTAL
>Source              : Protocols for IP Multicast
>Area                : Routing
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG
>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:45:19 -0700

Hi

I don't think there is anything wrong in the RFC. In 4.4.1 it
discusses specifically state on the upstream interface. As it says
there, Forwarding is the initial state, and it never transitions to
NoInfo.

In 4.4.2 however it is talking about state for downstream interfaces.
And it just says that that state machine must be in NoInfo state on
the upstream interface. That is maybe a bit confusing. But basically
there are two different state machines, and only one of them can be in
NoInfo state on the upstream interface.

Stig