Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7837)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

This looks like a candidate “hold for document update”. The original document doesn’t seem to be in error, the erratum is just suggesting some editorial improvements/clarifications. Note that RFC 2119 keywords are not mandatory [*] in IETF specifications, what’s important is that the intent is clear, and I think the intent is crystal clear with the lowercase “mandatory“.

Unless there’s disagreement, I’ll verify this as HFDU later this week.

—John

[*] see what I did there?

> On Mar 5, 2024, at 5:50 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8214,
> "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7837__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ECfJun-NPxU03B9Sfleq6xIj3IAePWsksETEL7ltxPlKDab3vqjlsXLZwlk3CGcfbqzdDpIW8cKMZwUTyuXDWw$
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 3.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.  This attribute is mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.
> 
> If multihoming is enabled, this attribute is MANDATORY regardless of whether the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is advertised by an EVPN-VPWS instance or by a "bridging" EVPN instance.
> 
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The lower-case "mandatory" used in the original text does not represent any form of requirement in IETF documents, therefore replacing with upper-case "MANDATORY" is needed.
> 
> The reference to per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes advertised by both "bridging" EVPN and EVPN-VPWS is needed to remove possible doubts about the scope of this requirement since the standard is about EVPN-VPWS.
> 
> 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.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8214 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN
> Publication Date    : August 2017
> Author(s)           : S. Boutros, A. Sajassi, S. Salam, J. Drake, J. Rabadan
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : BGP Enabled ServiceS
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG