RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Reported (2)
RFC 9359, "Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities", April 2023
Source of RFC: ippm (ops)
Errata ID: 7901
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Loa Andersson
Date Reported: 2024-04-19
Throughout the document, when it says:
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities
It should say:
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Capabilities
Notes:
Neither OAM nor IOAM are well-known and need to be expanded at first use, this is the title so this is the first occurrence.
Errata ID: 7902
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Loa Andersson
Date Reported: 2024-04-19
Throughout the document, when it says:
Abstract This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/ reply mechanisms, which can be used within an IOAM-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
It should say:
Abstract This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/ reply mechanisms, which can be used within an In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
Notes:
The Abstract is considered stand-alone, and any not well-known abbreviations need to be
expanded.
Note: I'm uncertain about the placement of the "hyphen" and the parenthesis in
"In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)-Domain"