[mpls] Opinion sort: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3107 (2319)

Hi,

Can I have the authors'  and WG's opinion on Bruno's comments, please.

Point 1 seems reasonable to me.
Point 2 feels like a bit of  semantic issue. If MPLS packets can be
exchanged, is there not an LSP by definition?
Removing the sentence (as in Point 3) would require adding the reference,
etc. and that is a mess better handled by the new draft "updating" the RFC.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: <yakov@juniper.net>; <erosen@cisco.com>; <stbryant@cisco.com>;
<adrian.farrel@huawei.com>; <swallow@cisco.com>; <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; <mpls@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:22 PM
Subject: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3107 (2319)

>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3107,
> "Carrying Label Information in BGP-4".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3107&eid=2319
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com>
>
> Section: 5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> "A BGP speaker should not advertise this capability to another BGP speaker
> unless there is a Label Switched Path (LSP) between the two speakers."
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> "An eBGP speaker should not advertise this capability to another eBGP
> speaker unless there is a Label Switched Path (LSP) or layer two interface
> between the two speakers."
>
> Or just remove completely that sentence.
>
> Notes
> -----
> 1) :s/BGP/eBGP
> An iBGP router should be able to set up an internal BGP session for AFI 1
> / SAFI 4 toward a Route Reflector even if the Route Reflector is not
> capabble of forwarding MPLS packets (This case is even described in the
> section 2 of the RFC)
>
> 2) + layer two interface
> If both router are connected by a direct (sub)interface, they should be
> able to exchange MPLS packets even if there is no LSP between them.
>
> 3) Remove the sentence
> AFAIK, the point is now better addressed by
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-01.txt
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3107 (draft-ietf-mpls-bgp4-mpls-04)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Carrying Label Information in BGP-4
> Publication Date    : May 2001
> Author(s)           : Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>