[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5882 (4812)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 27 September 2016 16:22 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 DA64F12B2AD; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:22:07 -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 k8meeiyeHsn3; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:22:06 -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 6268C12B2A9; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5B615B8168A; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com, dkatz@juniper.net, dward@juniper.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5882 (4812)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160927162206.5B615B8168A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:22:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/GBTe_qRiN4AdzsqpeCx3TQgcJTg>
Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, iesg@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 16:22:08 -0000
The following errata report has been held for document update 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 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Date Reported: 2016-09-27 Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) 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. -------------------------------------- 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