[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5882 (4812)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 27 September 2016 07:33 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB55B12B379 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5qMv9EMZhNVq for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F42012B2BD for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 43556B80A7C; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: dkatz@juniper.net, dward@juniper.net, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, jhaas@pfrc.org, rrahman@cisco.com
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5882 (4812)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160927073338.43556B80A7C@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:33:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/2PwJhv-zDBkGnCBMvXPHa66P_Tw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:12:32 -0700
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 07:33:40 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5882, "Generic Application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5882&eid=4812 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Section: 10.1.2 Original Text ------------- IS-IS may be used to support only one data protocol, or multiple data protocols. [ISIS] specifies a common topology for multiple data protocols, but work is under way to support multiple topologies. If multiple topologies are used to support multiple data protocols (or multiple classes of service of the same data protocol), the topology- specific path associated with a failing BFD session should no longer be advertised in IS-IS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in order to signal a lack of connectivity. Corrected Text -------------- IS-IS may be used to support only one data protocol, or multiple data protocols. [ISIS] specifies a common topology for multiple data protocols, but work is under way to support multiple topologies. If multiple topologies are used to support multiple data protocols (or multiple classes of service of the same data protocol), the topology- specific path associated with a failing BFD session should no longer be advertised in IS-IS Link State Packets (LSPs) in order to signal a lack of connectivity. Notes ----- In the context of this section (that discusses usage of BFD sessions for detection of failure of an IS-IS adjacency) the abbreviation "LSP" should be expanded as "Link State Packet" and not as "Label Switched Path". >From my POV this is an editorial erratum since I believe the readers of the RFC understand what the authors wanted to say. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC5882 (draft-ietf-bfd-generic-05) -------------------------------------- Title : Generic Application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Katz, D. Ward Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5882 (4812) RFC Errata System
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5882 (4812) RFC Errata System