RFC 6706, "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)", August 2012Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Errata ID: 3319
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mark Ford
Date Reported: 2012-08-15
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2012-08-22
Section global says:
No comparison/contrast to Next-Hop Reachability Protocol (RFC 2332) is provided.
It should say:
A paragraph or more detailing the differences between these two approaches would be welcome and help reduced confusion.
There seems to be a strong similarity betweeen AERO and NHRP in terms of overall function.
A discussion and clarification wrt NHRP, and I understand how that might enrich the work on Aero.
However, the Errata Reporting system is not the right way to raise this issue.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status_type_desc.html describes the two types of
Technical: An error in the technical content.
Editorial: A spelling, grammar, punctuation, or syntax error that does not
affect the technical meaning.
The IESG statement at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html
gives a more detailed view of what constitutes Errata.
The correct way to advance this particular issue is through email with the
author (possibly also copying an IETF discussion mailing list) and then, if
appropriate through the publication of an Internet-Draft to capture the
discussion or to revise this RFC with the discussion included.