Re: [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6683)
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 14 September 2021 08:20 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0F93A0EE3 for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7-P_5Qme52lt for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F1B63A0EE1 for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 18E89tuM018090; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:55 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22504604C; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9F64604B; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.2.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 18E89rYM018978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:53 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'RFC Errata System' <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: l2sm@ietf.org, giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it, xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn, luay.jalil@verizon.com, bin_wen@comcast.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <20210914054638.552B5F409A9@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210914054638.552B5F409A9@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:09:51 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <1aa601d7a93f$e5793a40$b06baec0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGz7LLGJz/Q2MPvjlVyqsjcjXOOIavqpWRw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.2.143
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1018-26406.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.357-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.357-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1018-26406.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--11.356900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: TmlY9+XBoTnxIbpQ8BhdbMzWN98iBBeGOPTK3QRc4JDfoEW8Nyvnb5uc wbCn9SioRDGDkk97fu0s9UlS3XnHEHItegU8T6xV4t2mucDkRBFPEvlTYRZqW4RYHyK7IaoJyVh aMnMnOpkvYRhsicUjmyaTw03n/wYO0iILwdNxhJI1Pd2wRvpA9x3puAfcyDXJ0r50qUvYHEAlLK kfyH4ze/gbQ2JqKj6W5ASSCWKkZHc9AOF20d7i3we06kQGFaIWVOLMRauooBFZ+YxyNxdzR4opg HeEYgzIa/TjFbR9UETXEBASxXdBD7a0EpV/UcVF3nHtGkYl/Vq5tt/YcLkWjSBQRBOQhaJiqmHW Ijdul9eK4istoRoHQHOhOZypaizSnPecQ/hKOMAdZEkR8Y/meXb4y1hCjTOP1YzbHoRn9L2cvFB vqoNK+7hyoPBAMTjnyb2AiJtCpPqthC0pSC0oe8oT2gD1xc7NyWxPa/RwSU++d8e9SCCBEnnZXX OX4A9zrY81Gk+qTQWRk6XtYogiatCpCFLDTHZUSVdy2uiYUWL6C0ePs7A07b4iOwQQ4jNiFM9ch rZgd/lTr7WmwowIXtjua2SZLJOdru+WxicaPjk=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/PApqRNzzOetzXVTCLkKcTD1TULI>
Subject: Re: [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6683)
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:20:17 -0000
Looks right to me. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: L2sm <l2sm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of RFC Errata System Sent: 14 September 2021 06:47 To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: l2sm@ietf.org; giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it; xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn; luay.jalil@verizon.com; bin_wen@comcast.com; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Subject: [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6683) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8466, "A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6683 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Section: 5.10.2.1 Original Text ------------- QoS classification rules are handled by "qos-classification-policy". qos-classification-policy is an ordered list of rules that match a flow or application and set the appropriate target CoS (target-class-id). The user can define the match using a more specific flow definition (based on Layer 2 source and destination MAC addresses, cos, dscp, cos-id, color-id, etc.). A "color-id" will be assigned to a service frame to identify its QoS profile conformance. A service frame is "green" if it is conformant with the "committed" rate of the bandwidth profile. A service frame is "yellow" if it exceeds the "committed" rate but is conformant with the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Finally, a service frame is "red" if it is conformant with neither the "committed" rate nor the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Corrected Text -------------- QoS classification rules are handled by "qos-classification-policy". qos-classification-policy is an ordered list of rules that match a flow or application and set the appropriate target CoS (target-class-id). The user can define the match using a more specific flow definition (based on Layer 2 source and destination MAC addresses, dscp, color-type, etc.). A "color-type" will be assigned to a service frame to identify its QoS profile conformance. A service frame is "green" if it is conformant with the "committed" rate of the bandwidth profile. A service frame is "yellow" if it exceeds the "committed" rate but is conformant with the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Finally, a service frame is "red" if it is conformant with neither the "committed" rate nor the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Notes ----- There is no "color-id" under "qos-classification-policy". The text should refer to "color-type" given that the "qos-classification-policy" substree is as follows: +--rw service | +--rw qos {qos}? | | +--rw qos-classification-policy | | | +--rw rule* [id] | | | +--rw id string | | | +--rw (match-type)? | | | | +--:(match-flow) | | | | | +--rw match-flow | | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp | | | | | +--rw dot1q? uint16 | | | | | +--rw pcp? uint8 | | | | | +--rw src-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw dst-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw color-type? identityref | | | | | +--rw target-sites* | | | | | | svc-id {target-sites}? | | | | | +--rw any? empty | | | | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id | | | | +--:(match-application) | | | | +--rw match-application? identityref | | | +--rw target-class-id? string The same applies for "cos" and "cos-id". The corrected text uses "color-type" instead of "color-id" and removes "cos" and "cos-id" from the flow definition examples. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8466 (draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-10) -------------------------------------- Title : A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery Publication Date : October 2018 Author(s) : B. Wen, G. Fioccola, Ed., C. Xie, L. Jalil Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : L2VPN Service Model Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ L2sm mailing list L2sm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm
- [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6683) RFC Errata System
- Re: [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [L2sm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8466 (6… Qin Wu