Requested revision
Standard:802.1aq-2012Clause:13.29.32
Clause title:updtDigest()
Rationale for revision
In .1aq 13.29.32 updtDigest(), page 145, lines 41-43, the agreeND variable is stated to be the value of the Discarded Agreement Number (DAN), *transmitted *in SPT BPDU and SPB Hello PDUs. Elsewhere in .1aq (13.27.15 pg 126 line 43 , 13.27.17 pg 126 lines 51-54, 13.29.14, 13.29.28) agreeND is a *received* DAN value. Additionally in 13.29.32 updtDigest(), page 145 the agreedND variable is used as the *received* DAN, but is stated to be the *transmitted* DAN value in 13.27.12 pg 126 lines 20-24 and in 13.29.28 txRstp() pg 143 line 43. A minor related issue, that might add to the confusion if not corrected is that the opening sentence of 13.29.32 says that the the procedures "Updates agreeDigest, agreeN, and agreedND, following a calculation ... and checks for a topology match with the updated values of those variables". In fact neither the received nor the transmitted DAN is updated in the initial part of the procedure, but both can be updated subsequently as part of the procedure's checking for a topology match.
Proposed text
In clause 13.29.32 updtDigest(): In the first sentence replace "Updates agreeDigest, agreeN, and agreedND" with "Updates agreeDigest and agreeN". Replace all five occurences of "agreeND" with "agreedND", i.e. those in bullets h), h1), k), and k1), and that in the sentence beginning "The agreeDigest, agreeN, and agreeND". Replace all four occurrences of "agreedND" with "agreeND", i.e. those in bullets a), b), i), and j).
Impact on existing networks
This revision request concerns and internal inconsistency in the standard that would make it impossible to implement one of its provisions if followed. Existing implementations may be based on technically correct information generated during the development of the standard.
Originator
Name:Mick SeamanEmail:mickseaman@sbcglobal.net
Affiliation:Mick Seaman
Submitted:2012-04-20