RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 1997, "BGP Communities Attribute", August 1996

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 3889

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Ramakrishna DTV
Date Reported: 2014-02-12
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2014-03-02

Section 3 says:

   This document creates the COMMUNITIES path attribute is an optional
   transitive attribute of variable length.  The attribute consists of a
   set of four octet values, each of which specify a community.  All
   routes with this attribute belong to the communities listed in the
   attribute.

It should say:

   This document creates the COMMUNITIES path attribute, which is an 
   optional transitive attribute of variable length.  The attribute 
   consists of a set of four octet values, each of which specify a 
   community.  All routes with this attribute belong to the 
   communities listed in the attribute.

Notes:

Typo in first sentence. "which" is missing.

Errata ID: 3890

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Ramakrishna DTV
Date Reported: 2014-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2014-03-02

Section 3 says:

   The community attribute values ranging from 0x0000000 through
   0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are hereby reserved.

It should say:

   The community attribute values ranging from 0x00000000 through
   0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are hereby reserved.

Notes:

Since community is a 32-bit value, 0x0000000 should be 0x00000000 to remove confusion.

Verifier note: It might be useful to tidy this when the text is updated, but the text is correct and there is no possibility of confusion if you read the whole sentence.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 1997, "BGP Communities Attribute", August 1996

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 4576

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Gjoko Stamenkov
Date Reported: 2016-01-02
Rejected by: Alvaro Retana
Date Rejected: 2016-04-03

Throughout the document, when it says:

Well-known Communities

   The following communities have global significance and their
   operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP
   speaker.

NO_EXPORT (0xFFFFFF01)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP
         confederation boundary (a stand-alone autonomous system that
         is not part of a confederation should be considered a
         confederation itself).
NO_ADVERTISE (0xFFFFFF02)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP
         peers.
NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (0xFFFFFF03)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to external BGP
         peers (this includes peers in other members autonomous
         systems inside a BGP confederation).

It should say:

Well-known Communities

   The following communities have global significance and their
   operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP
   speaker.

NO_EXPORT (0xFFFFFF01)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to external BGP
         peers (this includes peers in other members autonomous
         systems inside a BGP confederation).  
NO_ADVERTISE (0xFFFFFF02)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP
         peers.
NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (0xFFFFFF03)
         All routes received carrying a communities attribute
         containing this value MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP
         confederation boundary (a stand-alone autonomous system that
         is not part of a confederation should be considered a
         confederation itself).

Notes:

Definitions of NO_EXPORT and NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED are interchanged in the original text.

=== (Alvaro Retana) ===

After some research and discussion with the WG [1], I'm rejecting this report.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15364.html
--VERIFIER NOTES--
After some research and discussion with the WG [1], I'm rejecting this report.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15364.html

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×