Re: [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9085 (7736)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I agree with your change to the corrected text - for both the errata as
they are very similar.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:24 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Same for erratum 7737.
>
> —John
>
> > On Jan 12, 2024, at 12:53 PM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This looks right, I'm going to verify it unless someone objects. I want
> to make a couple small grammar edits as well.
> >
> > OLD:
> >  when there is also an Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated it.
> >
> > NEW:
> >  when there is also a Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated with it.
> >
> > I'm asking instead of just doing it because under some circumstances one
> might use "to" instead of “with" as the preposition. I don't think that
> applies in this case, but there's no harm in checking.
> >
> > --John
> >
> >> On Dec 20, 2023, at 12:24 AM, RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7736__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AeBk2HBieiSCrul5mSWf5WUsxA8rECe2OjLyHRSrsEb8RfLGiw52Ez6x40oiMk8-TjogmzWVlBR_SuI7MZGnRw$
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Type: Technical
> >> Reported by: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Section: 2.3.5
> >>
> >> Original Text
> >> -------------
> >>  A Prefix NLRI, that has been advertised with a Range TLV, is
> >>  considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
> >>  when there is also an IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095) associated it.
> >>  Otherwise, it is considered only as the first prefix in the range for
> >>  prefix-to-SID mapping advertisement.
> >>
> >> Corrected Text
> >> --------------
> >>  A Prefix NLRI, that has been advertised with a Range TLV, is
> >>  considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
> >>  when there is also an Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated it.
> >>  Otherwise, it is considered only as the first prefix in the range for
> >>  prefix-to-SID mapping advertisement.
> >>
> >> Notes
> >> -----
> >> The current text is referring to the wrong BGP-LS TLV. Since the Range
> TLV is associated with a Prefix NLRI, the "Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155)"
> should be referenced here since the "IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095)" is
> associated with a Link NLRI.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
>