IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Thu, 09 March 2017 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@cisco.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 CEFDD12946E; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Vyz4JrleYygu; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77F5D1293FF; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:20:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489090858; x=1490300458; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=OpRIzvpRlJ4lDOr7/IZ9fXWXvZtPUZ7zBNTWfv3+ip0=; b=AahpoNnS0MinBn5fD1QwqQoRQUH8gnSdB5NdvgfmCECTNZiA0TJreQ+f Shim35mSnby3HOIgYPrecBNRK4C7GZHoY04fquVRNh2R6ZWiMkzMncA2G lpKJtrdx2JzcgLNnYa3S5BqN01PDR0g6K5wfY+4tinPMx8bgT/CdIirVC c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATAQAXuMFY/5FdJa1DGhkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNRYYEKB41lkU+IDY0rgg4fC4V4AoIxPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQMBATg0CwwEAgEIEQQBAQEeCQchBgsUCQgCBAENBQgMiVQDFQ4xsySHOA2DIwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2GToRvgTyBFUaHIgWJGoY+hiKGBToBjgyEIpEpilSIagEfOBVuVhU/hFQdgWN1AROHWgaBKoENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,137,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="218395629"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Mar 2017 20:20:56 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v29KKuqh018243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:20:56 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:20:55 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:20:55 -0600
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "nmalykh@gmail.com" <nmalykh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8092 (4962)
Thread-Index: AQHSmOjo5F1lfj0IAEKQ0vaxnQPJCqGNIPyA///SeCA=
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:20:55 +0000
Message-ID: <701766e2506f49d3adc1686a829875d2@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <20170309152156.5956BB80EB2@rfc-editor.org> <20170309170345.tnrs3pre5qqmiy5x@Vurt.local>
In-Reply-To: <20170309170345.tnrs3pre5qqmiy5x@Vurt.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.40.202]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xDg1kpw94M-neGhAtgtXRcyrEmM>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org>, "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8092 (4962)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:21:00 -0000

I agree.

Thanks,
Jakob.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:04 AM
> To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; idr@ietf.org; nmalykh@gmail.com
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com
> Subject: Re: [Idr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8092 (4962)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:21:56AM -0800, 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
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I suggest to reject this errata. The name of the BGP Path Attribute is
> singular, namely "LARGE_COMMUNITY" (see IANA's "Border Gateway Protocol
> (BGP) Parameters" registry for "BGP Path Attributes")
> 
> There somewhat is a lack of semantic precision on when to use
> "community" and when to use "communities", but there is no other
> commonly accepted jargon for what we're talking about in IETF creole
> language. In this sense RFC 8092 was aligned with RFC 1997. Sorry for
> the confusion, but we didn't see a way around it.
> 
> If you are an implementer, feel free to reach out to me off list, I'd be
> happy to help clarify, confirm your understanding of the specification
> and perhaps help with interop testing.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email