[ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7902)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 19 April 2024 12:06 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E50C14F70E for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 TdQgcWYdCwdq for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 1C471C14F6AD for <ippm@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 05B1918F7297; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: loa@pi.nu, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn, gregimirsky@gmail.com, leibo@chinatelecom.cn, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240419120558.05B1918F7297@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:05:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/y5-pN_PDx1K7EgWzqwg3pFb-r4o>
Subject: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7902)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:06:02 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9359, "Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7902 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Abstract This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/ reply mechanisms, which can be used within an IOAM-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER). Corrected Text -------------- Abstract This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/ reply mechanisms, which can be used within an In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER). Notes ----- The Abstract is considered stand-alone, and any not well-known abbreviations need to be expanded. Note: I'm uncertain about the placement of the "hyphen" and the parenthesis in "In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)-Domain" 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9359 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities Publication Date : April 2023 Author(s) : X. Min, G. Mirsky, L. Bo Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9359 (7902) RFC Errata System