RFC Errata
RFC 5331, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", August 2008
Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)
Errata ID: 1702
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-02
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 9 says:
A typical use case of upstream-assigned labels is for MPLS multicast and is described here for illustration. This use case arises when an upstream LSR Ru is adjacent to several downstream LSRs <Rd1...Rdn> in | an LSP, LSP1 AND Ru is connected to <Rd1...Rdn> via a multi-access media or tunnel, AND Ru wants to transmit a single copy of an MPLS packet on the LSP to <Rd1...Rdn>. [...]
It should say:
A typical use case of upstream-assigned labels is for MPLS multicast and is described here for illustration. This use case arises when an upstream LSR Ru is adjacent to several downstream LSRs <Rd1...Rdn> in | an LSP, LSP1, AND Ru is connected to <Rd1...Rdn> via a multi-access ^ media or tunnel, AND Ru wants to transmit a single copy of an MPLS packet on the LSP to <Rd1...Rdn>. [...]
Notes:
Rationale:
The missing comma distorts the sense (giving the subject LSP a name,
"LSP1") and visually binds "LSP1" too much to the "AND".
Maybe it would have been preferable to also insert "say" for clarity:
"... and LSP, say LSP1, AND ..."