Subject: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:40:07 -0600

Hi all,

I would like to claim errate on RFC 5213 as follows:

In Section 8.1
on Mobility Options, the paragraph:

As per this specification, the following mobility options are
      valid in a Proxy Binding Update message.  These options can be
      present in the message in any order.  There can be one or more
      instances of the Home Network Prefix options present in the
      message.  However, there cannot be more than one instance of any
      of the following options.

         Mobile Node Identifier option

         Home Network Prefix option

         Handoff Indicator option

         Access Technology Type option

         Timestamp option

         Mobile Node Link-layer Identifier option

         Link-local Address option

While the text allows one or more instances of HNP, the list that just
follows does not.
I think that Home Network Prefix option should be deleted from the list.

How to report this errata to IETF?

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:48:37 +0000

Hi Behcet,

The text in the section is a bit misleading and could have been written
better.
The list that is mentioned in "the following mobility options are validŠ."
is the one which which includes the HNP option as well. It is clear that
the HNP option can have multiple instances whereas the other options can
be either one or zero.

Hence I don't think that there is a need to do an errata unless it is a
cause of confusion to implementers.

-Raj

On 2/28/12 2:40 PM, "ext Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:03:33 -0600

Hi Raj,

The same error is repeated in Section 8.2 as well.
There is no errata on RFC 5213 as of today, why not report these two?

No one is perfect :-).

Behcet

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:19:20 +0000

Agree...
Lets put some alternative text to the list first to correct the problem
and then take it to the RFC editor after we have consensus.
Errata can be handled thru: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

-Raj

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:36:58 -0600

I just did.

Behcet

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:11:11 -0800

Hi Behcet,

There are two parts to it. The options that are considered valid in PBU/PBA
and the single instance count requirement for the options and one special
case. So, I agree, its bit on the border line with respect to how the text
came out. We could have simply not talked about the instance count validity.
But, given that the rest of the text is consistent with respect to the
instances of each option that are allowed, the overall meaning of the text
is still clear, IMO. But, we can discuss further.

Regards
Sri