RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 9085, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", August 2021

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9356

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 7736
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Ketan Talaulikar
Date Reported: 2023-12-20
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2024-01-16

Section 2.3.5 says: 

   A Prefix NLRI, that has been advertised with a Range TLV, is
   considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
   when there is also an IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095) associated it.
   Otherwise, it is considered only as the first prefix in the range for
   prefix-to-SID mapping advertisement.

It should say:

   A Prefix NLRI, that has been advertised with a Range TLV, is
   considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
   when there is also a Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated with it.
   Otherwise, it is considered only as the first prefix in the range for
   prefix-to-SID mapping advertisement.

Notes:

The current text is referring to the wrong BGP-LS TLV. Since the Range TLV is associated with a Prefix NLRI, the "Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155)" should be referenced here since the "IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095)" is associated with a Link NLRI.

Verifier note: in addition to the fix proposed by Ketan, I added a preposition: "associated with it", and corrected an indefinite article: "a Prefix".

Errata ID: 7734
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Alexandru Bran
Date Reported: 2023-12-18
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2024-01-12

Section 2.3.5 says: 

11 or 12 octets depending on the label or index encoding of the SID.

It should say:

15 or 16 octets depending on the label or index encoding of the SID.

Notes:

Length of the TLV does not account for the Prefix-SID Sub-TLVs type and length fields: 2 octets each = 4 octets in total.
This is valid for all variants: IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.

Note: see also https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/G_3KN-XXqyXbSXO1doiNJbK_gIA/

Errata ID: 6666
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Ketan Talaulikar
Date Reported: 2021-08-27
Verifier Name: Alvaro Retana
Date Verified: 2021-09-03

Section 2.3.1 says: 

   Flags:  1-octet value that should be set as:

      *  IS-IS Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 2.1.1 of
         [RFC8667].

      *  OSPFv2 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 5 of [RFC8665].

      *  OSPFv3 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 6 of [RFC8665].

It should say:

   Flags:  1-octet value that should be set as:

      *  IS-IS Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 2.1.1 of
         [RFC8667].

      *  OSPFv2 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 5 of [RFC8665].

      *  OSPFv3 Prefix-SID flags as defined in Section 6 of [RFC8666].

Notes:

The reference to the OSPFv3 spec in the text above needs to be corrected to RFC8666 instead of RFC8665.

This editorial error seems to have crept in during the RFC publication process. The draft version submitted by the WG and reviewed by the IESG has the correct text : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18#section-2.3.1

Report New Errata



Advanced Search