Subject: Re: [lisp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7052 (4256)

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:07:43 -0400

On 2/6/15 12:58 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote:
> 
> On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> It turns out that the discussion during review was with the upper limit.
>> I can't find any reference to discussions on the lower limit.  Authors?
> 
> going back to check Brian - it was a while ago.

Have we gotten anywhere with this check?  The erratum is sitting in a
less-than-useful state at this point.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Gregg Schudel (gschudel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:35:10 +0000

> less-than-useful state at this point.

my apologies Brian - i’d totally forgotten this one.
thanks for the (gentle :) reminder !

> Brian

Best regards,
Gregg

--------------------------------------------------------------------
.:|:.:|:. | gregg schudel (ccie#9591) LISP technical marketing engr
  cisco   | mobile: +1 571 332 2222   email: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
cisco corporate legal statement: 
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Gregg Schudel (gschudel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:09:39 +0000

> less-than-useful state at this point.

Hi Brian
I’m really sorry about droppng this. 

I’ve checked internal notes, authors, etc. I cannot find any record of (nor do we recall) us discussing “minimum length.” Looking at it now, the value of “5” in RFC7052 does not match any “real minimum length” that we can see.

Further, (in discussing with Isidor), the ability to return unspecified as an empty address, hence “0” length, makes sense.

So, again - the errate makes sense. No evidence is available to indicate otherwise.

thanks!

Best regards,
Gregg

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:19:03 -0400

Hi Gregg,

On 3/9/15 1:09 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote:
>>>> It turns out that the discussion during review was with the
>>>> upper limit. I can't find any reference to discussions on the
>>>> lower limit.  Authors?
>>> 
>> Have we gotten anywhere with this check?  The erratum is sitting in
>> a less-than-useful state at this point.
>> 
>> Regards, Brian
> 
> 
> Hi Brian I’m really sorry about droppng this.
> 
> 
> I’ve checked internal notes, authors, etc. I cannot find any record
> of (nor do we recall) us discussing “minimum length.” Looking at it
> now, the value of “5” in RFC7052 does not match any “real minimum
> length” that we can see.
> 
> Further, (in discussing with Isidor), the ability to return
> unspecified as an empty address, hence “0” length, makes sense.
> 

Isidor and I discussed whether changing all the lower bounds of 5 to 0
made sense or if there was a smaller subset of variables that should be
changed.

Isidor insisted on lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength being
changed, but there are potentially others.

I do not want to see a slew of errata roll in over the years changing
one variable's lower limit at a time.  Keeping in mind, a change for one
variable actually requires a change to two variables (the affected
variable and its corresponding Length variable).

Can the WG identify all the MIB variables that it wants changed with
this erratum?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Isidoros Kouvelas (kouvelas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:04:54 +0000

> Can the WG identify all the MIB variables that it wants changed with

The reason for which I think lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSender is the only use of LispAddressType that needs to be changed is that its access is "read-only". All other uses are "not-accessible” and part of the index of tables.

thanks
Isidor