[mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7307 (5146)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 05 October 2017 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE529133074 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmzAKfpj9K8T for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F141C13430B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8EEA3B80E25; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: quintin.zhao@huawei.com, skraza@cisco.com, czhou@cisco.com, lufang@microsoft.com, lilianyuan@chinamobile.com, daniel@olddog.co.uk, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, swallow.ietf@gmail.com, loa@pi.nu, n.leymann@telekom.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: sandy@tislabs.com, mpls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20171005174159.8EEA3B80E25@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 10:41:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/bN77Wr47p2NEZFjbNaJGRtF20Eg>
Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7307 (5146)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 17:42:27 -0000

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

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Editorial
Reported by: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>

Section: 4.3.3

Original Text
   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to the LDP IPv6 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-
   Topology ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.

Corrected Text
   The format of the MT LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 32) is similar to
   the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 2) as defined in [RFC4379].  In
   addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix Length" fields already
   defined in the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV, the new MT LDP IPv6 prefix 
   sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-Topology ID) field.  While
   the length of the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV is 17 (and does not include
   the trailing MBZ bytes), the length of this new MT LDP IPv6 prefix
   sub-TLV is 20 (and does include the internal MBZ byte).

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 17.” is incorrect if "this sub-TLV" refers to the topic of the section, i.e., "MT LDP IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV", but is correct if "this sub-TLV" refers to the LDP IPv6 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.

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. 

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