Subject: [pim] RFC 4601 Errata

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:22:48 -0800

The errata for RFC 4601 has 110 records, see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4601

I have tried to go through these and see if there are any of particular
concern that we should act on, or if they can be delayed until we
perhaps update or revise 4601 at some point.

For now I would be interested to hear if anyone in the wg has comments
on my summary below. IMO there are a couple of issues that may need
some discussion or analysis. I've only had a quick look myself so far.

So if you are interested, please check the errata and also see my
attempted summary below.

Summary:

Verified: 1
   A wrong reference, could be changed to "held for doc update".

Reported: 1
   Poor wording, should be fixed in update, move to "held for doc
   update".

Rejected: 17

held for document update (91):
48 of these are purely editorial.
19 are 2119 keywords that should be capitalized
5 are nearly editorial, obvious
6 could maybe be ignored/rejected
6 are asking for more security considerations
2 need further investigation and might be protocol errors
5 minor clarifications that should be added

IMO only two of these may be important for protocol operations
and require further analysis. Note that I only had a quick look
at this. They may turn out to not be issues.

Below are more details if you are interested.

Stig

1104-1107, 1110, 1128: asking for () since left associativity not specified
IMO this is fairly obvious, but we should fix it if we do an update.

1113, 1114: asking for additional discussion of link-local security
               related to forged hello messages
1119, 1133: also regarding link-local security
1135: Asks for more details on DoS attacks
1201: Asks for more security discussion
The above might be good to add, but not very important

1118: Needs clarification on state machine, this may be important.

1121: This should be rejected I think. This is incorrect.

1122-1123, 1142, 1145-1146, 1151-1152, 1154, 1156-1157, 1181, 1183-1185, 
1192, 1194-1195, 1198, 1200:
         2119 keywords not capitalized

1124: Some missing text, but fairly obvious

1143, 1168, 1170: Not sure I get it, either reject or maybe add quick
             clarification.

1159: Needs clarification on state machine, this may be important

1160: This should be investigated further

1161: Maybe should be clarified

1162, 1167: Pointing out that traffic may be dropped for a while,
             Not sure if should do anything with these

1166: Asking for clarification, I don't think it's needed

1169: Asking for clarification. Might be needed, but not important

1193: Asking for clarification. I think it's clear, but maybe needed
       since this person missed it.

1094-1098, 1101, 1108-1109, 1111-1112, 1115-1117, 1126-1127, 1129-1131,
1134, 1136-1141, 1144, 1147, 1149-1150, 1155, 1163-1165, 1172,
1178-1180, 1182, 1186-1190, 1197, 1199-1202: All editorial