[Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8667 (7722)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 07 December 2023 21:52 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEDAC14F60B for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:52:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 KH1xnIoVFE5H for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:52:20 -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 E49D1C14F5F6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id C26028529B; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:52:05 -0800 (PST)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, stefano@previdi.net, ginsberg@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, abashandy.ietf@gmail.com, hannes@rtbrick.com, bruno.decraene@orange.com, lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20231207215205.C26028529B@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2023 13:52:05 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/AZewJWmWripIgdf17alJ1WkyDuk>
Subject: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8667 (7722)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2023 21:52:24 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8667, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7722 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Section: 2.1.1.1 Original Text ------------- 2.1.1.1. V-Flag and L-Flag Corrected Text -------------- 2.1.1.1. V-Flag, L-Flag, and the SID/Index/Label Field Notes ----- Since the SID/Index/Label field is defined in this subsection, it's misleading for the title to mention only the flags and is a disservice to readers using the document as a reference. This is also discussed in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/56_LEEZvHDHrnkC98f7BtpOkkY0/ where Acee also suggests a broader clarification. The narrowly-scoped change reflected in this erratum seems sufficient to fix the problem I encountered; in my view, it doesn't preclude an additional erratum for some of the other matters that were mentioned by Acee if there's support for that as well. Thanks to Tony Li for suggesting the wording. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8667 (draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-25) -------------------------------------- Title : IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing Publication Date : December 2019 Author(s) : S. Previdi, Ed., L. Ginsberg, Ed., C. Filsfils, A. Bashandy, H. Gredler, B. Decraene Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Link State Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8667 (7722) RFC Errata System