RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 5882, "Generic Application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", June 2010

Source of RFC: bfd (rtg)

Errata ID: 4812

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein
Date Reported: 2016-09-27
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-09-27

Section 10.1.2 says:

   IS-IS may be used to support only one data protocol, or multiple data
   protocols.  [ISIS] specifies a common topology for multiple data
   protocols, but work is under way to support multiple topologies.  If
   multiple topologies are used to support multiple data protocols (or
   multiple classes of service of the same data protocol), the topology-
   specific path associated with a failing BFD session should no longer
   be advertised in IS-IS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in order to signal
   a lack of connectivity.

It should say:

   IS-IS may be used to support only one data protocol, or multiple data
   protocols.  [ISIS] specifies a common topology for multiple data
   protocols, but work is under way to support multiple topologies.  If
   multiple topologies are used to support multiple data protocols (or
   multiple classes of service of the same data protocol), the topology-
   specific path associated with a failing BFD session should no longer
   be advertised in IS-IS Link State Packets (LSPs) in order to signal
   a lack of connectivity.

Notes:

In the context of this section (that discusses usage of BFD sessions for detection of failure of an IS-IS adjacency) the abbreviation "LSP" should be expanded as "Link State Packet" and not as "Label Switched Path".

From my POV this is an editorial erratum since I believe the readers of the RFC understand what the authors wanted to say.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×