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

Yakov, 

Thanks for your review.

[...]

> Let me propose Point 1', namely just remove completely that sentence.

Sounds good to me. 

Regards,
Bruno

> Yakov.
> 
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls