Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2131 (7776)

Thank you, Bernie, with ‘some’ delay I have rejected this errata as the concern of the reporter is addressed by RFC 6842.

Regards

-éric

From: Bernie Volz <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, 23 January 2024 at 20:19
To: Rebecca VanRheenen <[email protected]>
Cc: Erik Kline <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, RFC Editor <[email protected]>, Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2131 (7776)
Please also see RFC6842 as relaxed this earlier restriction.

[cid:0DB1AE1D-5149-44F5-93A8-5244468F2F38]
RFC 6842: Client Identifier Option in DHCP Server Replies<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6842/>
datatracker.ietf.org<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6842/>

- Bernie (from iPad)


On Jan 23, 2024, at 12:33 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,

Note that we have updated the Original/Corrected text in this errata report to conform to the expected style. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7776.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv



On Jan 23, 2024, at 8:25 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2131,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7776

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Imrane <[email protected]>

Section: 4.3.1

Original Text
-------------
In the page 29 (if you were reading on a PDF),
section "4.3.1 DHCPDISCOVER message"
"table 3: Fields and options used by DHCP server",
on the "options" list, the "Client identifier" option,
it says "MUST NOT" for both DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK, however on DHCPNAK it says "MAY".

Corrected Text
--------------
"Client Identifier" should be a "MUST NOT" for the DHCPNAK as well.

Notes
-----
It seems that the field should only be used by a client and never by a server, and if that's true for the OFFER and ACK, then it should be even more correct for the NAK.

"Vendor class identifier" has a MAY for all three messages, so maybe it was a typo in the previous option because of the repetitive input in the next one.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC2131 (no draft string recorded)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Publication Date    : March 1997
Author(s)           : R. Droms
Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
Source              : Dynamic Host Configuration
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg