[sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8206 (7183)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 26 October 2022 16:03 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC3BC1522B9 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 a6rgavtJI67z for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:03:13 -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 A8480C14F734 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 8AD91C8AE9; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: wesgeorge@puck.nether.net, sandy@tislabs.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sandy@tislabs.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: iljitsch@muada.com, sidr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221026160313.8AD91C8AE9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:03:13 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/6OYVQlXdJcllkB-motxDi7uuqhg>
Subject: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8206 (7183)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:03:17 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8206, "BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7183 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Section: 3 Original Text ------------- Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and therefore do not require coordination with customers, they do not have as much control over the length of the transition period as they might with something completely under their administrative control Corrected Text -------------- Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and therefore do not require coordination with customers, they can transition at any time without delay. Notes ----- I have no corrected text. If the migration methods are transparent, how is it possible that SPs "do not have as much control over the length of the transition period as they might with something completely under their administrative control"? As it's transparent they would in fact have complete administrative control. 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 can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8206 (draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-06) -------------------------------------- Title : BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration Publication Date : September 2017 Author(s) : W. George, S. Murphy Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8206 (7183) RFC Errata System
- Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8206 (7… Wes George