Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6435 (3429)

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Adrian, David,

what I think we meant here was that a loop-back function could be done 
on an interface regardless of the presence of a MIP/MEP on that 
interface. Yet, I have to admit that MIP and MEP are used in Section 4 
of RFC6435, thus surely causing confusion.

I'd welcome the views/souvenirs of my co-authors.

-m

Le 12/12/2012 19:17, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> Authors of RFC 6435: I need to hear from you that you meant the text that David
> suggests. It is very clearly not what you wrote and, if you meant something
> different, it is clear why people are confused!
>
> Working group: I need to hear from you that you agree with David's
> interpretation and support his proposed change.
>
> Only then will I try to work out whether this is a "typo" worthy of an errata
> report, or a technical change needing a revised RFC.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 17:45
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6435 (3429)
>>
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6435,
>> "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback Functions".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6435&eid=3429
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: David Ball<[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 4 (para 5)
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> It should be noted that the data-plane loopback function itself is applied to
> data-
>> plane loopback points residing on different interfaces from MIPs/MEPs.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> It should be noted that the data-plane loopback function may be applied at
>> MIPs/MEPs on different interfaces for different LSPs.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The existing text has caused confusion (specifically, among experts in ITU-T
> SG15
>> when discussing G.8121.2), in that it seems to suggest that the interface
> where
>> the MIP/MEP is located may be a different interface to the one where the
>> loopback is applied.
>>
>> Having spoken with some of the original authors, it seems this was not the
> intent
>> of this sentence; the intent was to point out that as different LSPs would
> have
>> MIPs/MEPs on different interfaces, the corresponding loopback functions would
>> also be applied on different interfaces.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC6435 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-08)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback
> Functions
>> Publication Date    : November 2011
>> Author(s)           : S. Boutros, Ed., S. Sivabalan, Ed., R. Aggarwal, Ed., M.
> Vigoureux,
>> Ed., X. Dai, Ed.
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>