Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)

[Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein at ecitele.com>]

It may be worth noting that the ALL the TDM PW RFCs have been published AFTER 4385 (which is easy to see if you compare the RFC numbers; the first TDM PW RFC to go out was 4553).

So while the reporter has a point, I do not see how the problem could have been avoided...

My 2c.
     Sasha

________________________________________
From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis [amalis at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33 PM
To: RFC Errata System
Cc: swallow at cisco.com; yaakov_s at rad.com; pwe3 at ietf.org; lmartini at cisco.com; rdroms at cisco.com; danny at arbor.net; townsley at cisco.com; stbryant at cisco.com
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)

This errata should also include RFC 4842 in the list of TDM PW RFCs.

Thanks,
Andy

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4385,
> "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4385&eid=1743
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Yaakov (J) Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>
>
> Section: 4, 4.1, 4.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The sequence number mechanism described here uses a circular unsigned
> 16-bit number space that excludes the value zero.
> ...
> o The sequence number that follows 65535 (maximum unsigned 16-bit
>  number) is one.
> ...
> o If the sequence number on the packet is zero, the sequence
>  integrity of the packets cannot be determined.  In this case, the
>  received packet is considered to be in order.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The sequence number mechanism for all PW types except the TDM PWs
> SAToP [RFC4335], CESoPSN [RFC5086], and TDMoIP [RFC5087] use a
> circular unsigned 16-bit number space that excludes the value zero.
> The TDM PWs include the value zero.
> ...
> o For all non-TDM PWs the sequence number that follows 65535
> (maximum unsigned 16-bit number) is one.
> ...
> o If the sequence number on a non-TDM-PW packet is zero, the sequence
>  integrity of the packets cannot be determined.  In this case, the
>  received packet is considered to be in order.
>
> Notes
> -----
> While the fact that the TDM PWs always require the sequence number and thus do not give a zero value special meaning was well-known and documented in the relevant RFCs. However, this was forgotten in this document and is causing confusion to implementers.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC4385 (draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN
> Publication Date    : February 2006
> Author(s)           : S. Bryant, G. Swallow, L. Martini, D. McPherson
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge
> Area                : Internet
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3