[mpls] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7307 (5145)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 26 February 2021 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 31B503A0D64; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 A5MJw2kQUg3g; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:12:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF4D3A0D5D; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:12:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D4D39F4076D; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:11:56 -0800 (PST)
To: sandy@tislabs.com, quintin.zhao@huawei.com, skraza@cisco.com, czhou@cisco.com, lufang@microsoft.com, lilianyuan@chinamobile.com, daniel@olddog.co.uk
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: db3546@att.com, iesg@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210226221156.D4D39F4076D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:11:56 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/VrmKNE2wpnpQzic4krMtXVO4dpI>
Subject: [mpls] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7307 (5145)
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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:12:09 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC7307, "LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5145

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Date Reported: 2017-10-05
Held by: Deborah Brungard (IESG)

Section: 4.3.2

Original Text
-------------
   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to the LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to "IPv4 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-
   Topology ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 5.

Corrected Text
--------------
   The format of the MT LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV (type 31) is similar to
   the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV (type 1) as defined in [RFC4379].  In
   addition to the "IPv4 prefix" and "Prefix Length" fields already
   defined in the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV, the new MT LDP IPv4 prefix
   sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-Topology ID) field.  While
   the length of the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV is 5 (and does not include
   the trailing MBZ bytes), the length of this new MT LDP IPv6 prefix 
   sub-TLV is 8 (and does include the internal MBZ byte).

Notes
-----
The original text uses "this sub-TLV" in ways that can be ambiguous. In particular, the final sentence "The Length for this sub-TLV is 5." is incorrect if "this sub-TLV" refers to the topic of the section, i.e., "MT LDP IPv4 FEC Sub-TLV", but is correct if "this sub-TLV" refers to the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV defined in RFC4379/RFC8029. The revised text is suggested to remove the ambiguities. Adrian Farrell provided the bulk of the suggested revisions.

In addition, the sub-TLV names are changed to match the names that were registered in the IANA registry, to aid those trying to find the registry entries.

--------------------------------------
RFC7307 (draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology
Publication Date    : July 2014
Author(s)           : Q. Zhao, K. Raza, C. Zhou, L. Fang, L. Li, D. King
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG