IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sat, 17 October 2015 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 016B61A1A1E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 rqO2ADKIH6Mo for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:15:26 -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 AB7491A1A1D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [112.205.73.125]) (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 2CFF118013B2; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:15:19 +0200 (CEST)
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>, 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>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <5621D95B.8090209@pi.nu>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:15:07 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
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/asWol1COlOB9ydPkbyeQR_wCi4Q>
Cc: alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com, 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: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:15:28 -0000

Eric,

On 2015-10-17 03:52, 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.

I take this to mean "Accept - hold for a potential 3107bis", right?

/Loa
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email