Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8206 (7183)

[Wes George <[e-mail]>]

This should be rejected. it is not a correction of something inaccurate, 
but rather a clarifying question.

To answer the question, the statement refers to the fact that an SP can 
enable AS transition mechanisms and complete one part of the transition 
(their side can move from ASN to ASN') without coordination with the 
customer - thus the transition is transparent. But the SP can never 
disable those transition mechanisms and complete the transition fully to 
the new ASN without coordination with the remote side to reconfigure and 
point to the new ASN'

On 10/26/2022 12:03 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]>
>
> 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