Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

From: Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 15 January 2024 at 22:37
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Smiley <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)
The erratum looks valid to me.
Thanks.


"aut-num: AS1" defines a routing policy for AS1. The two peering sets specify the IP address of the local router in question (i.e. of AS1) as being 9.9.9.1.  The description in the line above example 7 states that 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2 (AS2) and 9.9.9.3 (AS3), so the prng-set should refer to AS2 and AS3 instead of AS1 and AS2.

Also, is there a contest for the longest time between rfc publication and someone noticing a valid erratum?

There should be.  I’m sure that there is also a separate competition for the longest time between when an errata was raised and when it is processed that I seem to do quite well at …

Thanks for your help,
Rob



Nick

Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 15/01/2024 09:38:

Hi Authors, Grow WG, Warren,

I don’t know RPSL, but reading the errata, and section 5.6 of that document, my instinct is that this errata is valid.  Is anyone able to confirm please?

Regards,
Rob


From: Chris Smiley <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 22:00
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)
Greetings,

This errata reports a problem with Section 86-13269662805/RFC2622. Upon further review, we believe it should point to Section 5.6/RFC2622.

We have updated accordingly. Please let us know any concerns.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/cs



> On Jul 13, 2023, at 6:31 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2622,
> "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7564
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Jiang Li <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 86-13269662805
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> In page 26 of RFC2622
> In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
> and 9.9.9.3.
> (7) peering-set: prng-bar
> peering: AS1 at 9.9.9.1
> peering-set: prng-foo
> peering: prng-bar
> peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1
> aut-num: AS1
> import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
> and 9.9.9.3.
> (7) peering-set: prng-bar
> peering: AS3 at 9.9.9.1
> peering-set: prng-foo
> peering: prng-bar
> peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1
> aut-num: AS1
> import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
>
> Notes
> -----
> As  "Figure 22: Example topology consisting of three ASes, AS1, AS2, and
> AS3; two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers." shows, the router 9.9.9.1 of AS1 connects to the router 9.9.9.3 of AS3 in exchange point 2.  It states that "In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2 and 9.9.9.3.", so I think the corresponding AS of 9.9.9.3 should be AS3 instead of AS1.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC2622 (draft-ietf-rps-rpsl-v2-03)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
> Publication Date    : June 1999
> Author(s)           : C. Alaettinoglu, C. Villamizar, E. Gerich, D. Kessens, D. Meyer, T. Bates, D. Karrenberg, M. Terpstra
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Routing Policy System
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>



_______________________________________________

GROW mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow