[mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC8223 (5584)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 31 May 2023 16:51 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
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 8CD4DC15155F; Wed, 31 May 2023 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rfofEJgmEFhq; Wed, 31 May 2023 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1BA9C151533; Wed, 31 May 2023 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 5B5017FDDB; Wed, 31 May 2023 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: jkbhardwaj@gmail.com, sesale@juniper.net, rtorvi@juniper.net, luay.jalil@verizon.com, uma.chunduri@huawei.com, skraza@cisco.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, iesg@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230531165145.5B5017FDDB@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 09:51:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nT3WcEgc_c-4BtKBQ71e9yFx9GY>
Subject: [mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC8223 (5584)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 31 May 2023 16:51:49 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8223, "Application-Aware Targeted LDP". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5584 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Jayant Bhardwaj <jkbhardwaj@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2018-12-27 Rejected by: James N Guichard (IESG) Section: 2.3.2 Original Text ------------- 1. The S-bit of the TAC is set to 1 or 0 to advertise or withdraw it. Corrected Text -------------- 1. The E-bit of the TAC is set to 1 or 0 to advertise or withdraw it. Notes ----- My understanding of this RFC suggests that in order to Advertize or Withdraw TAC , the bit E in TAC is used. In Point # 1 of section 2.3.2, it is mentioned that bit S is used. Looks this is Editorial mistake. --VERIFIER NOTES-- I believe this errata is inaccurate. The S-bit is part of the "Capability Parameter" TLV as defined in RFC 5561 Section 3 and the TAE is the Targeted Application Capability that is defined in RFC8223. Section 2.3.2 is correct in stating that the S-bit of the TAC is set to 1. -------------------------------------- RFC8223 (draft-ietf-mpls-app-aware-tldp-09) -------------------------------------- Title : Application-Aware Targeted LDP Publication Date : August 2017 Author(s) : S. Esale, R. Torvi, L. Jalil, U. Chunduri, K. Raza Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Multiprotocol Label Switching Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC8223 (5584) RFC Errata System