RFC 3811, "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management", June 2004

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7274

Errata ID: 1842
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Vishwas Manral
Date Reported: 2009-08-27
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2012-06-02

Section 3 says:

       MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel.  This may
              represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
              LSR for the tunnel.  This value is derived from the
              Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID
              for CR-LDP."
          REFERENCE
             "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
              [RFC3209].

              Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

It should say:

       MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel.  This may
              represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
              LSR for the tunnel for an IPv4 network.  For IPv6
              this represents an IPv4 address of the ingress or
              egress LSR for the tunnel for an IPv6 network.
              This value is derived from the
              Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID
              for CR-LDP."
          REFERENCE
             "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
              [RFC3209].

              Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
          SYNTAX  OCTET STRING(SIZE(16))

Notes:

The Syntax is wrong. This change will require the new TC to be used through out the MPLS MIB modules. A MIB http://potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis/ was written for the purpose.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Although only a few lines of text are proposed for modification, this change would make a technically un-interoperable change to existing implementations. Therefore it should be handled by discussion in the working group and a new RFC if there is consensus. I am rejecting the erratum.

Report New Errata