Found 3 records.

Status: Reported (3)

RFC 8584, "Framework for Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", April 2019

Errata ID: 5899
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sean.Chen
Date Reported: 2019-11-12

Section 1.1 says:

BD: Broadcast Domain.  An EVI may be comprised of one BD
      (VLAN-based or VLAN Bundle services) or multiple BDs (VLAN-aware
      Bundle services).

It should say:

BD: Bridge Domain.  An EVI may be comprised of one BD
      (VLAN-based or VLAN Bundle services) or multiple BDs (VLAN-aware
      Bundle services).

Notes:

broadcast domain is not comprised in any services (VLAN-based or VLAN Bundle service).

Errata ID: 5900
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Frank Lu
Date Reported: 2019-11-12

Section 1.1 says:

BD: Broadcast Domain.  An EVI may be comprised of one BD
      (VLAN-based or VLAN Bundle services) or multiple BDs (VLAN-aware
      Bundle services).

It should say:

BD: Broadcast Domain.  An EVI may be comprised of one BD
      (VLAN-based) or multiple BDs (VLAN Bundle services 
or VLAN-aware Bundle services).

Notes:

By definition, tgere

Errata ID: 7811
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Luc André Burdet
Date Reported: 2024-02-15

Section 3.2 says:

   Where:

   o  DF(V) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which
      Weight(V, Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1.

   o  BDF(V) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the
      computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF.
      j is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values.

It should say:

   Where:

   o  DF(V) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which
      Weight(V, Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i <= N-1.

   o  BDF(V) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the
      computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF.
      j is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values.

Notes:

Paul Kyzivat raised a point while reviewing EVPN Port-Active draft, that really points to a possible algorithm errata in RFC8584 ;

Basically, when evaluating the DF for HRW,
> * DF(Es) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which
> Weight(Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1.

Here,

if N=1, no remotes: 0 <= i < 0 -- ERROR

if N=2, 1 peer: 0 <= i < 1 -> possible values are only 0 meaning index 1 (the peer)’s weight is not considered.
Logically, this should be 0 <= i <= N-1 or 0 <= i < N ?

Report New Errata