Re: [OSPF] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6549 (4041)

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia, 
I agree with this errata. Note that the AuType field size is correctly
depicted in section 2 of RFC 6549.
Thanks,
Acee 

-----Original Message-----
From: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM
To: Ericsson <[e-mail]>, Abhay Roy <[e-mail]>, Sina
Mirtorabi <[e-mail]>, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel
<[e-mail]>, Abhay Roy <[e-mail]>, Ericsson
<[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, OSPF - OSPF WG List
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6549 (4041)

>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6549,
>"OSPFv2 Multi-Instance Extensions".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6549&eid=4041
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Editorial
>Reported by: Jim Young <[e-mail]>
>
>Section: 8
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>8.  IANA Considerations
>
>The size of the AuType field is reduced from 16 octets to 8 octets.
>This changes the OSPF Authentication Codes registry in that the
>values 256-65535 are no longer defined and are therefore deprecated.
>There is no backward compatibility issue since this range of values
>was previously defined as "Reserved and should not be assigned".
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>8.  IANA Considerations
>
>The size of the AuType field is reduced from 16 bits to 8 bits.
>This changes the OSPF Authentication Codes registry in that the
>values 256-65535 are no longer defined and are therefore deprecated.
>There is no backward compatibility issue since this range of values
>was previously defined as "Reserved and should not be assigned".
>
>
>Notes
>-----
>Earlier in RFC6549 Section 2. OSPFv2 Instance Packet Encoding, Paragraph
>2 states "All fields are as defined in [OSPFV2] except that the Instance
>ID field is new, and the AuType field is reduced to 8 bits from 16 bits
>without any change in meaning.  The Instance ID field is defined as
>follows:".  The proposed corrected text makes section 8 consistent with
>section 2.
>
>Instructions:
>-------------
>This errata 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.
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC6549 (draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance-09)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : OSPFv2 Multi-Instance Extensions
>Publication Date    : March 2012
>Author(s)           : A. Lindem, A. Roy, S. Mirtorabi
>Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
>Area                : Routing
>Stream              : IETF
>Verifying Party     : IESG