Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7854 (7703)

Thanks for having filed this errata; this also seems right to me.

Paolo

On 30/11/23 18:06, Dhananjay Patki (dhpatki) wrote:
> Thanks John. Waiting to hear other opinions, if any.
> 
> --
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dhananjay
> 
> *From: *John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 1:00 AM
> *To: *Dhananjay Patki (dhpatki) <dhpatki@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *Rex Fernando (rex) <rex@cisco.com>, sstuart@google.com 
> <sstuart@google.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Rob Wilton 
> (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>, job@fastly.com <job@fastly.com>, 
> christopher.morrow@gmail.com <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, 
> grow@ietf.org <grow@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7854 (7703)
> 
> This seems right. Unless anyone else sees a problem with it, I’d say 
> verify the erratum.
> 
> —John
> 
>> On Nov 16, 2023, at 5:24 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7854,
>> "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)".
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7703__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HnufjFK0wFIcNIN5-34vQMqmG8yvUaw6eoTAdyMYnTxkogc1LdAbUJOb_Guugi2ASer_uq6Aaaowjtulif7zJQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7703__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HnufjFK0wFIcNIN5-34vQMqmG8yvUaw6eoTAdyMYnTxkogc1LdAbUJOb_Guugi2ASer_uq6Aaaowjtulif7zJQ$>
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Dhananjay S. Patki <dhpatki@cisco.com>
>> 
>> Section: 4.2
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>      *  The L flag, if set to 1, indicates that the message reflects
>>         the post-policy Adj-RIB-In (i.e., its path attributes reflect
>>         the application of inbound policy).  It is set to 0 if the
>>         message reflects the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.  Locally sourced
>>         routes also carry an L flag of 1.  See Section 5 for further
>>         detail.  This flag has no significance when used with route
>>         mirroring messages (Section 4.7).
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>      *  The L flag, if set to 1, indicates that the message reflects
>>         the post-policy Adj-RIB-In (i.e., its path attributes reflect
>>         the application of inbound policy).  It is set to 0 if the
>>         message reflects the pre-policy Adj-RIB-In.  Locally sourced
>>         routes also carry an L flag of 1.  See Section 5 for further
>>         detail.  This flag has significance only when used with Route
>>         Monitoring messages.
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The L flag is used to indicate whether the route monitoring update reflects Adj-RIB-In pre-policy or post-policy (RFC 7854), or Adj-RIB-Out pre-policy or post-policy (RFC 8671). It does not apply to any message other than the Route Monitoring message.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7854 (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-17)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)
>> Publication Date    : June 2016
>> Author(s)           : J. Scudder, Ed., R. Fernando, S. Stuart
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Global Routing Operations
>> Area                : Operations and Management
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow