IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3209 (4733)

"George Swallow -X (swallow - CLEARPATH WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT INC at Cisco)" <swallow@cisco.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2D212D7C4 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 gpaUMiKZ-49F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E742A12D56C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2477; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467991513; x=1469201113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hY9An0BXbLBr4QSSb1jOEB7BqWRLrKNeLIOqJ4oar4M=; b=X/xMQsayxzFmVMucH0AUx8zFqPx6UY1v8dzK2/y+mVx5tUiUOXaCLz2p iKhJh8amBUPkehRGugyIoEOvKh0o/mKw5LeRH+0FtRaY54jRzUflRTjyu i+I0451KK6bgN9gm3ZUsWloAHVbT+IClIxCBw+3EaeAh4GgzJ1u3lJ/EO 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B3AgB3xX9X/40NJK1BGoM+VnwGuQ6BeyKFdgKBJzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhE0BBTo/EAIBCDYQHxMlAgQBDQWIMA4tvUoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEcinSBOYhjBYgaC4cSiV0BFo44gWqEWIhqhlqJMwEeNoIJDQ+BTG4BE4gffwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,330,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="295294749"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Jul 2016 15:25:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u68FPDZ4013914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:25:13 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:25:12 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com ([173.36.7.26]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:25:12 -0500
From: "George Swallow -X (swallow - CLEARPATH WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT INC at Cisco)" <swallow@cisco.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "dhg@juniper.net" <dhg@juniper.net>, "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "loa@pi.nu" <loa@pi.nu>, "swallow.ietf@gmail.com" <swallow.ietf@gmail.com>, "rcallon@juniper.net" <rcallon@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3209 (4733)
Thread-Index: AQHR12xQ5fm9GTZ6xEylYcvHzMQ7JqAOu72A
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:25:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D3A53DAB.579DA%swallow@cisco.com>
References: <20160706095353.B0454B80F36@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160706095353.B0454B80F36@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.249.207]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <AB9342BE3C0DC246BD130206A7B7C758@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ngj5829iA3P005PMgajDM-kgjWs>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com" <ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3209 (4733)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:25:17 -0000

I totally agree that this is an improvement.  I don't really see it as an
error.  Since the rest of the document is clear that sequence is important
I doubt that anyone seriously stumbled over this.

Suggest we mark this one "hold for update".

George



On 7/6/16, 5:53 AM, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3209,
>"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3209&eid=4733
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Technical
>Reported by: Ramakrishna DTV <ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com>
>
>Section: 4.3.2
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
>   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
>   set of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node consists
>   of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
>   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
>   sequence of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node
>   consists of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.
>
>
>Notes
>-----
>s/set/sequence
>
>A set implies ordering of abstract nodes is NOT important.
>A sequence implies ordering of abstract nodes IS important.
>
>In the rest of RFC 3209, this distinction is maintained, but not
>in this paragraph.
>
>Instructions:
>-------------
>This erratum 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.
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC3209 (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
>Publication Date    : December 2001
>Author(s)           : D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V.
>Srinivasan, G. Swallow
>Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>Area                : Routing
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email