[Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9514 (7737)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 20 December 2023 05:35 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
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 024FAC05E040 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6Et_xf5zUnyL for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:23 -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 2B362C257EE3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 012A419864E6; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:22 -0800 (PST)
To: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, ketant.ietf@gmail.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, daniel.bernier@bell.ca, bruno.decraene@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, skh@ndzh.com, keyur@arrcus.com, jhaas@pfrc.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ketant.ietf@gmail.com, idr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20231220053523.012A419864E6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:22 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/p31Q_Pj2OCtXFm8csC20n1P9ccs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:11:05 -0800
Subject: [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9514 (7737)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 05:35:27 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9514, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7737 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Section: 5.1 Original Text ------------- The IPv6 Prefix matching the locator may also be advertised as prefix reachability by the underlying routing protocol. In this case, the Prefix NLRI would also be associated with the Prefix Metric TLV [RFC7752] that carries the routing metric for this prefix. A Prefix NLRI that has been advertised with a SRv6 Locator TLV is also 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 only considered an SRv6 Locator advertisement. Corrected Text -------------- The IPv6 Prefix matching the locator may also be advertised as prefix reachability by the underlying routing protocol. In this case, the Prefix NLRI would also be associated with the Prefix Metric TLV [RFC7752] that carries the routing metric for this prefix. A Prefix NLRI that has been advertised with a SRv6 Locator TLV is also considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only when there is also a Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated it. Otherwise, it is only considered an SRv6 Locator advertisement. Notes ----- The current text is referring to the wrong BGP-LS TLV. Since the SRv6 Locator 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9514 (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14) -------------------------------------- Title : Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Publication Date : December 2023 Author(s) : G. Dawra, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, Ed., M. Chen, D. Bernier, B. Decraene Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9514 (7737) RFC Errata System