RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 8214, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN", August 2017

Source of RFC: bess (rtg)

Errata ID: 6117
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Luc Andre Burdet
Date Reported: 2020-04-22

Section 3.1, 8 says:

3.1.  EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   MBZ                   |C|P|B|  (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         Name     Meaning
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
         P        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
         B        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
         C        If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present ...

8.  IANA Considerations
   Initial registrations are as follows:

        P      Advertising PE is the primary PE.
        B      Advertising PE is the backup PE.
        C      Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.


It should say:

Option 1 : change explicit bitfield
==========
3.1.  EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
##<swap>   |   MBZ                   |C|B|P|  (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         Name     Meaning
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
         P        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
         B        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
         C        If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present ...

8.  IANA Considerations
   Initial registrations are as follows:

        P      Advertising PE is the primary PE.
        B      Advertising PE is the backup PE.
        C      Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.


Option 2 : change implicit order
==========
3.1.  EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   MBZ                   |C|P|B|  (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         Name     Meaning
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
##       B        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
##<swap 'implicit' list order B,P to match bitfield>
##       P        If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios, ...
         C        If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present ...

8.  IANA Considerations
   Initial registrations are as follows:

##      B      Advertising PE is the backup PE.
##<swap 'implicit' list order B,P to match bitfield>
##      P      Advertising PE is the primary PE.
        C      Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.




Notes:

While technically section 8 is not requesting any bit-position from IANA registry, the ordering of requests P-B-C vs. the field definition B-P-C is confusing, or at least inconsistent.

A clarifying statement is required:
- the field definition is should be swapped; or
- the field definition shall prime over all the places implying order when listing P-B-C

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 8214, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN", August 2017

Source of RFC: bess (rtg)

Errata ID: 5571
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: gangadhara reddy chavva; SatishKumar N Rodd
Date Reported: 2018-12-10
Rejected by: Martin Vigoureux
Date Rejected: 2019-06-17

Section 3.1 says:

C If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is
recommended that the control word be included in the
absence of an entropy label [RFC6790].

It should say:

C If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is
recommended that the control word be included in the
absence of an entropy label [RFC6790]. 

For detailed explanation of the behavior of EVPN VPWS 
session based on control word bit can be referred link: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4447#section-6.2

which explains all combinations of control word 
configurations in detailed way whic was missing in RFC8214.

Notes:

RFC8214 doesn't mention the cases where control word configuration between the PE's can mismatch, disabled, enabled. which will lead to ambiguity in protocol implementation.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This could change the specification in a way which in fact would likely require consensus. Authors of this errata are encouraged to follow the normal process and start with having a discussion in BESS WG.

Report New Errata