[Errata Verified] RFC4762 (4144)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 20 November 2014 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5BD1A1A5B; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 68EMLTTz6wRu; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE5C1A1A58; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C3036180448; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:42:20 -0800 (PST)
To: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com, mlasserre@alcatel-lucent.com, vach.kompella@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: [Errata Verified] RFC4762 (4144)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20141120144220.C3036180448@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/0k0lUdSC6jNVCww66Ml0oIDOtqM
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:43:19 -0000

The following errata report has been verified for RFC4762,
"Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4762&eid=4144

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>;
Date Reported: 2014-10-23
Verified by: Adrian Farrel (IESG)

Section: Appendix A

Original Text
-------------
   In a VPLS, we use a VCID (which, when using the PWid FEC, has been
   substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), to address
   extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment.
   Note that the VCID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier,
   identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit.  In
   a VPLS, the VCID is a single service identifier, so it has global
   significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.

Corrected Text
--------------
   In a VPLS, we use a PWID (which, when using the Generalized PW ID 
   FEC, has been substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), 
   to address
   extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment.
   Note that the PWID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier,
   identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit.  In
   a VPLS, the PWID is a single service identifier, so it has global
   significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.

Notes
-----
1. The problematic text follows a diagram depicting the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128) as it appears in RFC 4447. This diagram includes a 32-bit PWID field, but there is no VCID field. Nor is VCID mentioned anywhere in RFC 4447 - it has been used in the original Martini drafts but has then been replaced by PWID. 

2. According to RFC 4447, AGI is used only in the Generalized PW ID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-129) but not in the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128).

--------------------------------------
RFC4762 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling
Publication Date    : January 2007
Author(s)           : M. Lasserre, Ed., V. Kompella, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks INT
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG