Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101)
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 26 April 2020 04:37 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 467F63A00C0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qp4_VqX4len8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56EB3A0A90 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [122.2.101.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE04C321491; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 06:37:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, naikumar@cisco.com, cpignata@cisco.com, swallow.ietf@gmail.com, nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com, sriganeshkini@gmail.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, n.leymann@telekom.de, tsaad.net@gmail.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
References: <20200413111718.3C7F4F40721@rfc-editor.org> <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <ae2c36a0-8d3e-d086-239e-e15742a23111@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:37:28 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/OppefYZJ_3W8O8_tL0drc7EubOA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 04:37:43 -0000
Deborah, Can we close this?? /Loa On 13/04/2020 22:15, Loa Andersson wrote: > Sasha, et.al., > > > The errata is mostly right, but the suggested corrected text is not > entirely correct. > > Also this seems to have crept in while the document was in the RFC Ed > Queue, and should have been discovered during AUTH48. As the Shepherd > I should have captured this. > > The text that the IESG approved is correct, > draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-13, it stands out very clearly in the diff. > > On 13/04/2020 19:17, RFC Errata System wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8287, >> "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) >> IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data >> Planes". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6101 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein >> <alexander.vainshtein@ecitele.com> >> >> Section: 7.2 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> The network node that advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible >> for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with the Post Office >> Protocol (POP) operation type for the Node Segment ID, regardless of >> whether or not Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) is enabled. >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> The network node that advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible >> for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with the POP) >> operation type for >> the Node Segment ID, regardless of whether or not Penultimate Hop >> Popping >> (PHP) is enabled. > > FURTHER CORRECTED TEXT > > The network node which advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible > for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with pop operation type for > Node Segment ID, regardless of whether penultimate hop popping (PHP) > is enabled or not. > > It should also be noted that the the next paragraph also have the same > issue. > > CURRENT TEXT > > The network node that is immediately downstream of the node that > advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating the > FEC Stack Change sub-TLV for POP operation for the Adjacency Segment > ID. > > CORRECTED TEXT > > The network node that is immediate downstream of the node which > advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating FEC > Stack Change sub-TLV for pop operation for Adjacency Segment ID. > > Notes > ----- > The "pop" in pop operation is not an abbreviation or acronym, it is is > the name of the operation type, the other operation type is "push". > > I recommend that this Errata is held waiting for a future revision of > the RFC. > > > /Loa >> >> >> Notes >> ----- >> Expansion of POP to "Post Office Protocol" in the context of this >> document is wrong. >> >> 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 >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC8287 (draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-13) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for >> Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers >> (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes >> Publication Date : December 2017 >> Author(s) : N. Kumar, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed., G. Swallow, N. >> Akiya, S. Kini, M. Chen >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Multiprotocol Label Switching >> Area : Routing >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> > -- My mail server it under a DOS attack, we are working to fix it but it may take some time. Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101) RFC Errata System
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6… Loa Andersson