RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 1997, "BGP Communities Attribute", August 1996
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7606, RFC 8642
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 3889
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ramakrishna DTV
Date Reported: 2014-02-12
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2014-03-02
Section 3 says:
This document creates the COMMUNITIES path attribute is an optional transitive attribute of variable length. The attribute consists of a set of four octet values, each of which specify a community. All routes with this attribute belong to the communities listed in the attribute.
It should say:
This document creates the COMMUNITIES path attribute, which is an optional transitive attribute of variable length. The attribute consists of a set of four octet values, each of which specify a community. All routes with this attribute belong to the communities listed in the attribute.
Notes:
Typo in first sentence. "which" is missing.
Errata ID: 3890
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ramakrishna DTV
Date Reported: 2014-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2014-03-02
Section 3 says:
The community attribute values ranging from 0x0000000 through 0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are hereby reserved.
It should say:
The community attribute values ranging from 0x00000000 through 0x0000FFFF and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are hereby reserved.
Notes:
Since community is a 32-bit value, 0x0000000 should be 0x00000000 to remove confusion.
Verifier note: It might be useful to tidy this when the text is updated, but the text is correct and there is no possibility of confusion if you read the whole sentence.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 1997, "BGP Communities Attribute", August 1996
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7606, RFC 8642
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 4576
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Gjoko Stamenkov
Date Reported: 2016-01-02
Rejected by: Alvaro Retana
Date Rejected: 2016-04-03
Throughout the document, when it says:
Well-known Communities The following communities have global significance and their operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP speaker. NO_EXPORT (0xFFFFFF01) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP confederation boundary (a stand-alone autonomous system that is not part of a confederation should be considered a confederation itself). NO_ADVERTISE (0xFFFFFF02) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP peers. NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (0xFFFFFF03) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to external BGP peers (this includes peers in other members autonomous systems inside a BGP confederation).
It should say:
Well-known Communities The following communities have global significance and their operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP speaker. NO_EXPORT (0xFFFFFF01) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to external BGP peers (this includes peers in other members autonomous systems inside a BGP confederation). NO_ADVERTISE (0xFFFFFF02) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP peers. NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED (0xFFFFFF03) All routes received carrying a communities attribute containing this value MUST NOT be advertised outside a BGP confederation boundary (a stand-alone autonomous system that is not part of a confederation should be considered a confederation itself).
Notes:
Definitions of NO_EXPORT and NO_EXPORT_SUBCONFED are interchanged in the original text.
=== (Alvaro Retana) ===
After some research and discussion with the WG [1], I'm rejecting this report.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15364.html
--VERIFIER NOTES--
After some research and discussion with the WG [1], I'm rejecting this report.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg15364.html