IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3107 (4497)

Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76E51A01F6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 hVeHn-sE9lZn for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FAFE1A0276 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lffz202 with SMTP id z202so2258367lff.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cstpFSz0jZxSmS9hJdxjfHKrpyKQtgHTPmgWbEjOh5g=; b=u7lEsGbyOkK6DXSo1XZToL0iL3OQE8m1B8JM0CspJWWW3GbxgUjlb8RTZSTez2V37I x5PpzbHCvkKFnWtphUPM6Z5RKzp5OemOhVoPs2FTJj73sZqwbWq7Wmg/l61tQ4NOfTaS fyhG3WZjBC9Mt1ODVghqgceWArTWWrwaXW+c3vdKfjJdLnlvwUdju0SihcyoFTiDmITo mly8KA73dVs3UJHMb08NV9EhcvKPqRUsgJ/mYE/IhNW2rxZLlifp5DElUlkGwaSkvVZo s1UqDz1ZCiYMz4AKtHW7lg8Db8E4V4DMTfpyXgiXvyTsreM9A8EVgVWdLP5YdEkAjrYb SydA==
X-Received: by 10.25.27.72 with SMTP id b69mr6103638lfb.90.1445027265700; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.5] (85-114-21-254.obit.ru. [85.114.21.254]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a138sm3152411lfe.19.2015.10.16.13.27.44 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <56215DC0.40100@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 23:27:44 +0300
From: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, swallow@cisco.com, rcallon@juniper.net
References: <20151013210728.27DF9187E28@rfc-editor.org> <561E1CC9.7080600@pi.nu> <561E4773.1090904@alcatel-lucent.com> <5621556E.1000600@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <5621556E.1000600@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/RsARKc5m9aau4RCGxWn7M9inwvI>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3107 (4497)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Oct 2015 20:27:51 -0000

Hello Eric,

I thought that this is not always correct to recursively refer to actual 
document. For example, RFC 4271 obsoletes RFC 1771, but these two have 
significant differences, and if some document depends on RFC 1771, then 
it doesn't mean that RFC 4271 could be equally used in place of RFC 
1771. Another example is BGP Capabilities Advertisement where RFC 5492 
is significantly differs from RFC 3392 and RFC 2842.

Goal to submit errata was that [RFC 2283] is inexistent reference (RFC 
2858 is referred by [BGP-MP] throughout document instead). If there 
would be written RFC 2283, it would be correct, but [RFC 2283] seems to 
be incorrect.

Thank you.

On 10/16/2015 10:52 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 8:15 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
>> I think we should stick to changing [RFC 2283] into [BGP-MP]. Otherwise
>> it could open the door to creating erratas for any reference that would
>> have been updated/obsoleted.
>
> Of course, one could also ask whether it is worthwhile to accept an 
> erratum that changes one obsolete reference to another. Whether one 
> looks in the RFC index for RFC2283 or for RFC2858, one will eventually 
> follow the change of tags to RFC4760.
>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status