[P2PSIP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6940 (5530)

[RFC Errata System]

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6940,
"REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5530

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Michael Chen <***@idssoftware.com>

Section: 10.7.4.4

Original Text
-------------
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Node-ID routed through B.

Corrected Text
--------------
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B.

Notes
-----
10.7.4.4 says, "repeat the discovery process used in the initial join", which refers to the 2nd paragraph after 10.5.9:

"It SHOULD send a Ping directed at Resource-ID n+1 (directly after its own Resource-ID)."

Ping Node-ID is simply wrong. This correction makes it consistent with 10.5.9. Credit goes to xramtsov in the mailing list.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC6940 (draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26)
--------------------------------------
Title : REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol
Publication Date : January 2014
Author(s) : C. Jennings, B. Lowekamp, Ed., E. Rescorla, S. Baset, H. Schulzrinne
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol RAI
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[Bless, Roland (TM)]

Dear all,

Post by RFC Errata System
Corrected Text
--------------
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B.

this should rather read:

P SHOULD then send a Ping for Resource-ID n+1 routed through B, where n
is P's own Node-ID.

IMHO "own Resource-ID n+1" is a bit confusing, because P is not the
responsible peer for n+1. What is meant is (own Resource-ID n)+1, but
that is hard to get from the text.

Regards
Roland

[Ben Campbell]

Is anyone aware of interop issues or implementation errors likely caused by this?

Thanks!

Ben.

Post by Bless, Roland (TM)
Dear all,

Post by RFC Errata System
Corrected Text
--------------
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B.

P SHOULD then send a Ping for Resource-ID n+1 routed through B, where n
is P's own Node-ID.
IMHO "own Resource-ID n+1" is a bit confusing, because P is not the
responsible peer for n+1. What is meant is (own Resource-ID n)+1, but
that is hard to get from the text.
Regards
Roland

[Evgeny]

Post by Ben Campbell
Is anyone aware of interop issues or implementation errors likely caused by this?

I think there should not be any interop issues because the check is done
by a peer itself and it doesn't require any special interaction with
other peers beyond the basic routing.