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: =?utf-8?q?=5Bbess=5D_Re=3A_=5BTechnical_Errata_Reported=5D_RFC9573_=288005?=
	=?utf-8?q?=29?=
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:
>=20
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9573,
> "MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels".
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8005
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
>=20
> Section: 4.2
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> Notes
> -----
> The =E2=80=9CpostPath=E2=80=9D member is an OPTIONAL member and this =
MUST can provide confusion.  The intent of this sentence was to outline =
which of the path members (=E2=80=9CprePath=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9CpostPath=E2=
=80=9D, and =E2=80=9CreplacementPath=E2=80=9D) 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.
>=20
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it=20
> 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 =20
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>=20
> --------------------------------------
> 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
>=20