RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 3065, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", February 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5065

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 339

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2006-01-25
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant

Appendix A says:

    The most notable change from [1] is that of reversing the values
    AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in
    section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension".  The reasoning for this
    is that in the initial implementation, which was already widely
    deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such,
    subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well.  In
    order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed
    implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well. 

It should say:

    The most notable change from [4] is that of reversing the values
    AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in
    section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension".  The reasoning foridely
    deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such,
    subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well.  In
    order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed
    implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.

Notes:


Sorry for mistype error in my previous message.
There is a mistype error in line 1 of Appendix A (RFC 3065). reference
to document [1] is wrong and must be changed to [4].

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 3065, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", February 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5065

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 338

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2006-01-25
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2012-02-14

Appendix A says:

   The most notable change from [1] is that of reversing the values
   AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in
   section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension".  The reasoning for this
   is that in the initial implementation, which was already widely
   deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such,
   subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well.  In
   order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed
   implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well. 

It should say:

    The most notable change from [5] is that of reversing the values
    AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in
    section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension".  The reasoning foridely
    deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such,
    subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well.  In
    order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed
    implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.

Notes:


There is an error in line 1 of Appendix A (RFC 3065). reference
to document [1] is wrong and must be changed to [5].

--VERIFIER NOTES--
Nikolai Malykh made an error in the submission of this erratum which was corrected in erratum 339.

Report New Errata