[Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9085 (6666)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 27 August 2021 16:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881DC3A1366 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 EtHWOO5P5XsV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:00:50 -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 3898D3A1400 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9F794F40716; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ketant@cisco.com, stefano@previdi.net, ketant@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@rtbrick.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210827160018.9F794F40716@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:00:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9Ef0go74etl74T7pJxvi25OdlwI>
Subject: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9085 (6666)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 16:01:12 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9085, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6666 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com> Section: 2.3.1 Original Text ------------- Flags: 1-octet value that should be set as: * IS-IS Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 2.1.1 of [RFC8667]. * OSPFv2 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 5 of [RFC8665]. * OSPFv3 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 6 of [RFC8665]. Corrected Text -------------- Flags: 1-octet value that should be set as: * IS-IS Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 2.1.1 of [RFC8667]. * OSPFv2 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 5 of [RFC8665]. * OSPFv3 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 6 of [RFC8666]. Notes ----- The reference to the OSPFv3 spec in the text above needs to be corrected to RFC8666 instead of RFC8665. This editorial error seems to have crept in during the RFC publication process. The draft version submitted by the WG and reviewed by the IESG has the correct text : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18#section-2.3.1 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9085 (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18) -------------------------------------- Title : Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing Publication Date : August 2021 Author(s) : S. Previdi, K. Talaulikar, Ed., C. Filsfils, H. Gredler, M. Chen Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9085 (6666) RFC Errata System