Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8092 (4962)

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

That's neither the intent (AFAICT) or the effect (for sure) of the erratum. The sole change proposed is to change "Community" to "Communities" in one instance of the name of the attribute, which as Alvaro points out just harmonizes the text with 13 other occurrences in the RFC.

I'm not so sure I agree with Alvaro that the case for the change is open-and-shut -- although he's right there are various other occurrences, there are also two other occurrences of the singular "Community" in the security section. If we're actually going to pick this nit, shouldn't the erratum cover all of them? Although in one case, changing to the plural would make the text exceedingly awkward.

I for one would support letting sleeping dogs lie, but whatever.

--John

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Ignas Bagdonas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> If the intention of the errata is to address the handling of duplicated large community attributes (i.e., multiple type 32 attributes present in UPDATE message) then it does not seem to be right. RFC7606 does not allow to have more than one meaningful attribute of the same type in a single UPDATE message, therefore the literal interpretation of "BGP Large Communities" attribute does not apply as only the first such attribute gets interpreted and all subsequent ones get ignored. RFC8092 has both singular and plural form of term "large community" values used in different contexts, referring to either a single 12 octet large community value or to a whole large communities attribute.
> 
> 
> Ignas
> 
> 
> On 09/03/2017 15:21, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8092,
>> "BGP Large Communities Attribute".
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=8092&eid=4962
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Section: 3
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>    Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
>>    receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
>>    values from a BGP Large Community attribute.
>> 
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
>>    receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
>>    values from a BGP Large Communities attribute.
>> 
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> Typo
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC8092 (draft-ietf-idr-large-community-12)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : BGP Large Communities Attribute
>> Publication Date    : February 2017
>> Author(s)           : J. Heitz, Ed., J. Snijders, Ed., K. Patel, I. Bagdonas, N. Hilliard
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Inter-Domain Routing
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>