[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7938 (5477)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 04 November 2018 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520B412F1A5; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 uY6BLuLY4nLQ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:43:51 -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 8B01C12F1A6; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9E10FB80E10; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 19:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: klemens.schragel@mailbox.org, petr@fb.com, ariff@arista.com, jrmitche@puck.nether.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7938 (5477)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20181104024339.9E10FB80E10@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 19:43:39 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/-bjrjN9GRdGwEmFTZn6MdkruJt8>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 02:43:53 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC7938, "Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5477

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Klemens Schragel <klemens.schragel@mailbox.org>
Date Reported: 2018-08-24
Held by: Martin Vigoureux (IESG)

Section: 3.2.3

Original Text
-------------
   The small example of topology in Figure 3 is built from devices with
   a port count of 4.  In this document, one set of directly connected
   Tier 2 and Tier 3 devices along with their attached servers will be
   referred to as a "cluster".  For example, DEV A, B, C, D, and the
   servers that connect to DEV A and B, on Figure 3 form a cluster.  The
   concept of a cluster may also be a useful concept as a single
   deployment or maintenance unit that can be operated on at a different
   frequency than the entire topology.

Corrected Text
--------------
   The small example of topology in Figure 3 is built from devices with
   a port count of 4. By introducing an additional Tier the 4-port
   Tier 1 device has still two unused ports to connect further devices,
   therefore scaling from a maximum of 8 servers in a 3-stage Clos to a
   maximum of 16 servers in this 5-stage Clos.
   In this document, one set of directly connected Tier 2 and Tier 3
   devices along with their attached servers will be referred to as a
   "cluster".  For example, DEV A, B, C, D, and the servers that
   connect to DEV A and B, on Figure 3 form a cluster.  The concept of
   a cluster may also be a useful concept as a single deployment or
   maintenance unit that can be operated on at a different frequency
   than the entire topology.

Notes
-----
Section does not properly describe where the scaling happens, also the depicted topology still connects only 8 servers (the same amount as with a 3-stage Clos). The reader can grasp the scaling only when looking very carefully at the figure.

--------------------------------------
RFC7938 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers
Publication Date    : August 2016
Author(s)           : P. Lapukhov, A. Premji, J. Mitchell, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Routing Area Working Group
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG