[Lsr] [Errata Rejected] RFC2328 (5684)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 28 June 2019 21:20 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 5E19D1202BB; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 gwnRxzVJUvFV; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9A812028B; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 32FCDB80ED2; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: jnatale@arista.com, jmoy@casc.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190628211955.32FCDB80ED2@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:19:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/SSgW8sKxB1r23wojKOdN9WAotsg>
Subject: [Lsr] [Errata Rejected] RFC2328 (5684)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:20:02 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5684 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: jonathan natale <jnatale@arista.com> Date Reported: 2019-04-04 Rejected by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) Section: 9.4 Original Text ------------- These two alternatives (~=">=1 BDRs" vs. ~="no BDRs") seem (to me at least, maybe I missed the point) to have the same outcome (~="highest becomes BDR")--please clarify it: If one or more of these routers have declared themselves Backup Designated Router[alternative1] (i.e., they are currently listing themselves as Backup Designated Router, but not as Designated Router, in their Hello Packets) the one having highest Router Priority is declared to be Backup Designated Router. In case of a tie, the one having the highest Router ID is chosen. If no routers have declared themselves Backup Designated Router[alternative2], Moy Standards Track [Page 75] RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 April 1998 choose the router having highest Router Priority, (again excluding those routers who have declared themselves Designated Router), and again use the Router ID to break ties. Corrected Text -------------- TBD Notes ----- It is unclear to me if a BDR should get preempted (I know the BDR should not). --VERIFIER NOTES-- The confusion was cleared on the WG list. -------------------------------------- RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Version 2 Publication Date : April 1998 Author(s) : J. Moy Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Lsr] [Errata Rejected] RFC2328 (5684) RFC Errata System