RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6016, "Support for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3 VPNs", October 2010

Source of RFC: tsvwg (tsv)

Errata ID: 2561
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-10-12
Held for Document Update by: Lars Eggert

Section 8.7,pg.27/28 says:

|  The usage of Aggregated VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is described in
|  Section 7.3.  The AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object appears in
|  RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a AGGREGATE-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC
   object as defined in [RFC3175] and [RFC4860], and are sent between
   ingress PE and egress PE in either direction.  These objects MUST NOT
   be included in any RSVP messages that are sent outside of the
   provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS Option-B and Option-C
|  cases, as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS links).

   The processing rules for these objects are otherwise identical to
|  those of the VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object defined in Section 8.3.  The
   format of the object is as follows:

It should say:

|  The usage of the Aggregated VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is described
|  in Section 7.3.  The AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 (or AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6)
   FILTER_SPEC object appears in RSVP messages that ordinarily contain
|  an AGGREGATE-IPv4 (respectively, AGGREGATE-IPv6) FILTER_SPEC object
   as defined in [RFC3175] and [RFC4860], and are sent between ingress
   PE and egress PE in either direction.  These objects MUST NOT be
   included in any RSVP messages that are sent outside of the provider's
   backbone (except in the inter-AS Option-B and Option-C cases, as
|  described above, when they may appear on inter-AS links).

   The processing rules for these objects are otherwise identical to
|  those of the VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC objects defined in
   Section 8.3.  The format of the object is as follows:

Notes:

Rationale:
a) missing article
b) incomplete specification; the use of "These objects" as well as the
references to two different RFCs (one for the IPv4 case, one for the
IPv6 case) are strong indications that this text should be phrased
in a similar manner as in preceding subsections of Section 8, i.e.
it should include mention of the equivalent object for the IPv6 case
as well (this qualifies the Errata Note as Technical);
c) s/a AGGREGATE/an AGGREGATE/
d) singular/plural mismatch: s/it/they/ .

Report New Errata