[bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9573 (8005)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 26 June 2024 16:04 UTC

To: zzhang@juniper.net, erosen52@gmail.com, wlin@juniper.net, lizhenbin@huawei.com, ice@braindump.be, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, jgs@juniper.net, gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, zzhang@juniper.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240626160409.CBF247FA79@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:04:09 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: IB75XXCGSUYXGPARQKPL7F7V6KYLJD5J
CC: jgould@verisign.com, bess@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9573 (8005)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/KUcLlr51v6aMD3sNsrSMxJ6buWA>

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9573,
"MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8005

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
The "postPath" member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

Corrected Text
--------------
The "postPath" member MAY be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4).

Notes
-----
The “postPath” member is an OPTIONAL member and this MUST can provide confusion. The intent of this sentence was to outline which of the path members (“prePath”, “postPath”, and “replacementPath”) to use when using path expressions and not to conflict with the OPTIONAL definition. All of the path expression members are defined as OPTIONAL in the RFC, so this MUST needs be changed to a MAY to correct the confusion.

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.

--------------------------------------
RFC9573 (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14)
--------------------------------------
Title : MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels
Publication Date : May 2024
Author(s) : Z. Zhang, E. Rosen, W. Lin, Z. Li, IJ. Wijnands
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : BGP Enabled ServiceS
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9573 (8005) RFC Errata System
[bess] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9573 (8… Rebecca VanRheenen