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

Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> Wed, 26 June 2024 16:45 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240626160409.CBF247FA79@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:45:45 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9102629-4291-4D43-83E8-0FEADEB8EC1E@amsl.com>
References: <20240626160409.CBF247FA79@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
To: zzhang@juniper.net, ice@braindump.be, erosen52@gmail.com, wlin@juniper.net, lizhenbin@huawei.com, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Message-ID-Hash: S2HXR6QSBUWPTGTBHMH5ZRJK3KLUMONZ
CC: jgould@verisign.com, bess@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: [bess] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9573 (8005)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/l0f7giBcLpzGcQxoymGpK0-TZsk>

FYI - We deleted this report. The submitter will create a new report with the correct RFC number (RFC 9537 rather than 9573).

Best regards,
RFC Editor/rv


> On Jun 26, 2024, at 9:04 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 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