[forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3746 (5339)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 09 September 2019 08:33 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C9F1200DB; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3pcyoLBB1fvZ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BB04120099; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3A8EAB8105F; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: nmalykh@gmail.com, lily.l.yang@intel.com, rdantu@unt.edu, todd.a.anderson@intel.com, ram.gopal@nokia.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org, forces@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190909083342.3A8EAB8105F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 01:33:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/g8CaGMT2HqXefMJUFsa3yryUUog>
Subject: [forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3746 (5339)
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:33:44 -0000
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC3746, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5339 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2018-04-27 Held by: Martin Vigoureux (IESG) Section: 4.2.1 Original Text ------------- The ForCES Working Group has made a conscious decision that the first version of ForCES will be focused on "very close" CE/FE localities in IP networks. Very Close localities consist of control and forwarding elements that are either components in the same physical box, or separated at most by one local network hop ([8]). CEs and FEs can be connected by a variety of interconnect technologies, including Ethernet connections, backplanes, ATM (cell) fabrics, etc. ForCES should be able to support each of these interconnects (see [4] Section 5, requirement #1). When the CEs and FEs are separated beyond a single L3 routing hop, the ForCES Protocol will make use of an existing RFC 2914 [3] compliant L4 protocol with adequate reliability, security, and congestion control (e.g., TCP, SCTP) for transport purposes. Corrected Text -------------- The ForCES Working Group has made a conscious decision that the first version of ForCES will be focused on "very close" CE/FE localities in IP networks. Very Close localities consist of control and forwarding elements that are either components in the same physical box, or separated at most by one local network hop ([8]). CEs and FEs can be connected by a variety of interconnect technologies, including Ethernet connections, backplanes, ATM (cell) fabrics, etc. ForCES should be able to support each of these interconnects (see [4] Section 4, requirement #1). When the CEs and FEs are separated beyond a single L3 routing hop, the ForCES Protocol will make use of an existing RFC 2914 [3] compliant L4 protocol with adequate reliability, security, and congestion control (e.g., TCP, SCTP) for transport purposes. Notes ----- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5337 -------------------------------------- RFC3746 (draft-ietf-forces-framework-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework Publication Date : April 2004 Author(s) : L. Yang, R. Dantu, T. Anderson, R. Gopal Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : Forwarding and Control Element Separation Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC374… RFC Errata System