IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309)

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC16621F8717 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uHOkLZCSzCwe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55D121F8608 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=2785; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344353029; x=1345562629; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=P/x+uL/FPj8++ZaiTHZkDXPs02HJb/FD8gKh2qnYpKY=; b=LOSpxhOUTpNaR89eYB2p5Nl4FjmBCVf68JFVO/YC8GlMDZg+9KajRb3d qnUy5SWf8McRKKPpgGHGQQ5htp3o3F3aPNEWByLwJN98DZ+1zQJs99F84 NL+9ZpJWlxQMgRSM43VcODYhXf7nzPa1equP6lu9+pdYM8SQpuauZlGN5 U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,727,1336348800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="109197919"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2012 15:23:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q77FNmMS029450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:23:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:23:48 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309)
Thread-Index: AQHNdLCjD8p8havrqUG3CmQWSwJYmg==
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:23:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F4BC8694-383E-403C-886E-5A69B230BC64@cisco.com>
References: <20120806142829.81256B1E003@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120806142829.81256B1E003@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.116]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19090.005
x-tm-as-result: No--40.204100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F7E1475-B28B-430E-B3D5-3F88BA2C2DB4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:53:28 -0700
Cc: "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "<livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com>" <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com>, "<fred.baker@cisco.com>" <fred.baker@cisco.com>, "<Olaf.Bonness@t-systems.com>" <Olaf.Bonness@t-systems.com>, "<cpopovic@cisco.com>" <cpopovic@cisco.com>, "<gunter@cisco.com>" <gunter@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5375 (3309)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:23:49 -0000

We agree that this erratum is valid.

On Aug 6, 2012, at 7:28 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:

> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5375,
> "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5375&eid=3309
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Lívio Zanol Pereira de Souza Puppim <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: B.2.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> B.2.2. /127 Addresses
> 
> 
> 
>   The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021
> 
>   [RFC3021], is not valid and should be strongly discouraged as
> 
>   documented in RFC 3627 [RFC3627].
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> B.2.2. /127 Addresses
> 
> 
> 
>   The usage of the /127 addresses, the equivalent of IPv4's RFC 3021
> 
>   [RFC3021], is valid as stated in RFC 6164 [RFC 6164].
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Maybe just remove the section B.2.2?
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5375 (draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations
> Publication Date    : December 2008
> Author(s)           : G. Van de Velde, C. Popoviciu, T. Chown, O. Bonness, C. Hahn
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : IPv6 Operations
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email