Subject: [mpls] Erratum against RFC 3811

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:04:28 +0100

Hi MPLS working group,

Long ago, Vishwas raised an Erratum against RFC 3811 (the Textual Conventions
MIB module for MPLS).

You can see at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1842

The essence of this is that the Syntax clause of the MplsExtendedTunnelId
Textual Convention is wrong. He also thinks it should support IPv6 extended
tunnel IDs.

Without commenting on whether he is right or wrong, this type of change cannot
be made using an Erratum. Please see point 7 of
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html 

In my view, although only a few lines of text are proposed for modification,
this change would make a technically un-interoperable change to existing
implementations. Therefore it should be handled by discussion in the working
group and a new RFC if there is consensus. I am rejecting the erratum.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:29:39 -0400

I agree. 

	--Tom

On Jun 2, 2012:12:04 PM, at 12:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

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

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:37:46 -0700

Hi Adrian,

I agree we can reject the Errata, the changes effect much more than the
specification itself.

I found the issues, when working on MPLS for IPv6 about 4 years ago. The
bigger issue for me, however is how to correct such errors. We had to make
changes to our MIB implementation to get this working internally - because
of the discrepancy between the MIB and the technology specification.

Do you think I should revive the draft?
http://potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis/

Thanks,
Vishwas