Subject: [Tsvwg] Errata 972 on RFC 4804 "Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels"

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:58:49 +0200

Hi,

The below copied errata seems to be all editorial.

I would also note, that I think all references that Alfred does in this
errata is to the Router Alert Option, not bit.

I would recommend Hold for document update with a modification that bit
-> option.

Please provide comments within 2 weeks.

Magnus

RFC4804, "Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels", February 2007

Errata ID: 972

Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-16

(1)  Section 4.2 -- word omissions

Within Section 4.2, the first paragraph on page 11 says:

                                                        [...].  The
   Router Alert is not set in the E2E Path message.
|              ^
It should say:

                                                        [...].  The
   Router Alert bit is not set in the E2E Path message.
|              ^^^^^

Equally, tha first line of the third paragraph on page 11,
                                                           v
|  Regardless of the encapsulation method, the Router Alert is not set.

should say:
                                                           vvvvv
|  Regardless of the encapsulation method, the Router Alert bit is not
   set.

(2)  Section 4.4 -- another word omission

As above, in the second-to-last paragraph of Section 4.4, on page 12,
the RFC says:
                                                 [...].  The
|  Deaggregator also sets the Router Alert.
                                          ^
It should say:
                                                 [...].  The
|  Deaggregator also sets the Router Alert bit.
                                          ^^^^^

(3)  Section 4.5 -- typo / spurious word

The second paragraph of section 4.5, on mid-page 12, says:

                                                            [...].  This
   includes performing admission control for the segment downstream of
   the Deaggregator and forwarding the E2E Resv message to the PHOP
|  signaled earlier in the E2E Path message and which identifies the
   Aggregator.  [...]
                                           ^^^^^
It should say:
                                                            [...].  This
   includes performing admission control for the segment downstream of
   the Deaggregator and forwarding the E2E Resv message to the PHOP
|  signaled earlier in the E2E Path message which identifies the
   Aggregator.  [...]
                                           ^

(4)  Section 4.6 -- yet another word omission

On page 14, the last sentence of Section 4.6 says:

                                           [...].  The Deaggregator also
|  sets the Router Alert.
                        ^
It should say:
                                           [...].  The Deaggregator also
|  sets the Router Alert bit.
                        ^^^^^

(5)  Section 4.9 --  missing articles

Within Section 4.9, the last footnote on page 15 says:

     (4)  Aggregator selects final TE tunnel, checks that there is
          sufficient bandwidth on TE tunnel, and forwards E2E Resv to
          PHOP.  If final tunnel is different from tunnel tentatively
          selected, the Aggregator re-sends an E2E Path with an updated
          IF_ID RSVP_HOP and possibly an updated ADSPEC.

It should say:

     (4)  Aggregator selects final TE tunnel, checks that there is
|         sufficient bandwidth on the TE tunnel, and forwards E2E Resv
|         to the PHOP.  If the final tunnel is different from the tunnel
          tentatively selected, the Aggregator re-sends an E2E Path with
          an updated IF_ID RSVP_HOP and possibly an updated ADSPEC.

(6)  Section 6 -- word omissions, and punctuation

The text in the numbered items in Section 6 consists of full
sentences starting with a capital letter.  Therefore all these
paragraphs should terminate in a full-stop.  Also, the word
'tuple' is missing twice.  Hence:

The RFC says (on page 16):

      (1)  The E2E RSVP reservation is a per-flow reservation where the
|          flow is characterized by the usual 5-tuple
                                                     ^
      (2)  The E2E reservation is an aggregate reservation for multiple
           flows as described in [RSVP-AGG] or [RSVP-GEN-AGG] where the
           set of flows is characterized by the <source address,
|          destination address, DSCP>
                                     ^
      (3)  The E2E reservation is a reservation for an IPsec protected
           flow.  For example, where the flow is characterized by the
|          <source address, destination address, SPI> as described in
           [RSVP-IPSEC].
                                                     ^
It should say:

      (1)  The E2E RSVP reservation is a per-flow reservation where the
|          flow is characterized by the usual 5-tuple.
                                                     ^
      (2)  The E2E reservation is an aggregate reservation for multiple
           flows as described in [RSVP-AGG] or [RSVP-GEN-AGG] where the
           set of flows is characterized by the <source address,
|          destination address, DSCP> tuple.
                                     ^^^^^^^
      (3)  The E2E reservation is a reservation for an IPsec protected
           flow.  For example, where the flow is characterized by the
|          <source address, destination address, SPI> tuple as described
           in [RSVP-IPSEC].
                                                     ^^^^^^^

(7)  Section 8 -- typos

(7a)

The 7th text line of Section 18, on mid-page 18, says:

|  The mechanisms protect [...]
      ^
It should say:

|  These mechanisms protect [...]
      ^^^

(7b)

The 4th paragraph on page 19 says:

   Section 5 of [RSVP-AGG] also discusses a security issue specific to
   RSVP aggregation related to the necessary modification of the IP
|  Protocol number in RSVP E2E Path messages that traverses the
   aggregation region.  [...]
                                                          ^^
It should say:

   Section 5 of [RSVP-AGG] also discusses a security issue specific to
   RSVP aggregation related to the necessary modification of the IP
|  Protocol number in RSVP E2E Path messages that traverse the
   aggregation region.  [...]
                                                          ^

It should say:

[see above]

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:26:10 +0200

Magnus and all,

> errata is to the Router Alert Option, not bit.

agreed.

But then, perhaps it should say "the Router Alert Option is included/ 
not included" instead of "the Router Alert Option is set/not set".

> I would recommend Hold for document update with a modification that  

Does this mean that this errata will not trigger a document update,  
but the fixes will be included whenever an update happens (for some  
other reasons)?
That would seem reasonable.

> Please provide comments within 2 weeks.

I am fine with the proposed changes below (modulo the RAO point above).

Francois

>                                                            [...].   
> This
>                                                            [...].   
> This

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:31:53 +0200

The state hold for update, will only mean that the errata is saved for
future document updates. Erratas never trigger any automatic document
updates, they are only saved in relation to the document by the RFC-editor.

Cheers

Magnus

Francois Le Faucheur IMAP skrev:
> But then, perhaps it should say "the Router Alert Option is included/not
> included" instead of "the Router Alert Option is set/not set".
> 
>>
>>
> Does this mean that this errata will not trigger a document update, but
> the fixes will be included whenever an update happens (for some other
> reasons)?

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:44:44 +0200

On 14 May 2009, at 14:31, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> future document updates.

perfect.
Thanks for the info.

Francois

> Erratas never trigger any automatic document
>> but