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

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

I think we should respect the timeline.
I understand that this errata gives the opportunity to reference the 
most up to date RFC, but 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.
The updates/obsoletes tag enables readers to reach the latest relevant 
document.

-m

Le 14/10/2015 11:13, Loa Andersson a écrit :
> Folks, (I removed Yacov, since hie mail address is no longer working),
>
> I think this errata is
> - first of minor importance and could be held for a future update
>    of RFC 3107
> - second the errata is at the core correct
> - third I'm not happy with the proposed new text
>
> I think it should be:
>
> NEW - first alternative
> -----------------------
> Label distribution can be piggybacked in the BGP Update message by
> using the BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions attribute defined in
> RFC 2858 [BGP-MP].
>
> Note:
> RFC 2858 obsoletes RFC 2283, so the text above reflects the situation
> as it was when 3107 were written. This correctly captured in the
> RFC archives and will be found even we only have the original text.
> But it would have been no harm doing this updates, if the documentation
> had not changed. RFC 2858 has later been obsoleted by RFC 4760, which in
> turn has been updated by RFC 7606.
>
> So I'm a bit undecided what to do about this, given that an update will
> take place in the time it is done, I believe that the corrected text
> should be:
>
> NEW - preferred alternative
> ---------------------------
> Label distribution can be piggybacked in the BGP Update message by
> using the BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions attribute defined in
> RFC 4760 [BGP-MP].
>
> Caveat: This requires an update to the [BGP-MP] in the reference
> section at the same time.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2015-10-14 05:07, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> 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=4497
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Alexander Okonnikov <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 2
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Label distribution can be piggybacked in the BGP Update message by
>>     using the BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions attribute [RFC 2283].
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Label distribution can be piggybacked in the BGP Update message by
>>     using the BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions attribute [BGP-MP].
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> No such reference [RFC 2283] in References section. Also document
>> refers to newer version of BGP-MP (RFC 2858).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>