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

Adrian,

Thanks for the review.

More inlined

> 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.

IMHO removing the sentence does not require adding the reference:
- the discussion on the BGP speaker is not relevant in the decision to
accept labelled BGP routes so we can safely remove the sentence
- the discussion on the BGP Next-Hop is already covered in the section 6
of the RFC. I don't see a need to add a reference to
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-01.txt

Regards,
Bruno

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