RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 8402, "Segment Routing Architecture", July 2018
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9256
Source of RFC: spring (rtg)
Errata ID: 7671
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alvaro Retana
Date Reported: 2023-10-09
Verifier Name: James N Guichard
Date Verified: 2023-10-09
Section 4.1 says:
A likely use case for the BGP-Prefix segment is an IGP-free hyper- scale spine-leaf topology where connectivity is learned solely via BGP [RFC7938]
It should say:
A likely use case for the BGP-Prefix segment is an IGP-free hyper- scale spine-leaf topology where connectivity is learned solely via BGP [RFC7938].
Notes:
The period is missing at the end of the sentence.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 8402, "Segment Routing Architecture", July 2018
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9256
Source of RFC: spring (rtg)
Errata ID: 7546
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Praveen Kumar
Date Reported: 2023-06-19
Rejected by: James Guichard
Date Rejected: 2023-06-19
Section 1 says:
The active segment is indicated by the Destination Address (DA) of the packet. The next active segment is indicated by the SegmentsLeft (SL) pointer in the SRH.
It should say:
Not sure of the exact corrected text but I feel SegmentsLeft (SL) pointer denotes the active segment, not the next active segment.
Notes:
SL is the active segment
--VERIFIER NOTES--
I am rejecting this errata as https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200#section-4.4 says “Number of route segments remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the final destination.”. In my opinion, the existing text for RFC 8402 is accurate based on the quoted text of RFC 8200.