RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 3065, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", February 2001
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5065
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 339
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2006-01-25
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Appendix A says:
The most notable change from [1] is that of reversing the values AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension". The reasoning for this is that in the initial implementation, which was already widely deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such, subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well. In order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.
It should say:
The most notable change from [4] is that of reversing the values AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension". The reasoning foridely deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such, subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well. In order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.
Notes:
Sorry for mistype error in my previous message.
There is a mistype error in line 1 of Appendix A (RFC 3065). reference
to document [1] is wrong and must be changed to [4].
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 3065, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", February 2001
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5065
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 338
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2006-01-25
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2012-02-14
Appendix A says:
The most notable change from [1] is that of reversing the values AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension". The reasoning for this is that in the initial implementation, which was already widely deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such, subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well. In order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.
It should say:
The most notable change from [5] is that of reversing the values AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE(4) and AS_CONFED_SET(3) to those defined in section "AS_CONFED Segment Type Extension". The reasoning foridely deployed, they were implemented backwards from [4], and as such, subsequent implementations implemented them backwards as well. In order to foster interoperability and compliance with deployed implementations, they've therefore been changed here as well.
Notes:
There is an error in line 1 of Appendix A (RFC 3065). reference
to document [1] is wrong and must be changed to [5].
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Nikolai Malykh made an error in the submission of this erratum which was corrected in erratum 339.