IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 16 November 2023 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B063FC151063 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:24:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7H-gdgxf_vxJ for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14FFC14CF01 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:24:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id B7D4E18EF1E3; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:24:07 -0800 (PST)
To: jgs@juniper.net, rex@cisco.com, sstuart@google.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, job@fastly.com, christopher.morrow@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: dhpatki@cisco.com, grow@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20231116102407.B7D4E18EF1E3@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:24:07 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/g1d3cJhNMuSnchQiqX0lkQCnQkk>
Subject: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7854 (7703)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:24:11 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7854,
"BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7703

--------------------------------------
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email