Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 9514, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", December 2023

Errata ID: 7737
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Ketan Talaulikar
Date Reported: 2023-12-20
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2024-01-16

Section 5.1 says:

   The IPv6 Prefix matching the locator may also be advertised as prefix
   reachability by the underlying routing protocol.  In this case, the
   Prefix NLRI would also be associated with the Prefix Metric TLV
   [RFC7752] that carries the routing metric for this prefix.  A Prefix
   NLRI that has been advertised with a SRv6 Locator TLV is also
   considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
   when there is also an IGP Metric TLV (TLV 1095) associated it.
   Otherwise, it is only considered an SRv6 Locator advertisement.

It should say:

   The IPv6 Prefix matching the locator may also be advertised as prefix
   reachability by the underlying routing protocol.  In this case, the
   Prefix NLRI would also be associated with the Prefix Metric TLV
   [RFC7752] that carries the routing metric for this prefix.  A Prefix
   NLRI that has been advertised with a SRv6 Locator TLV is also
   considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only
   when there is also a Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155) associated with it.
   Otherwise, it is only considered an SRv6 Locator advertisement.

Notes:

The current text is referring to the wrong BGP-LS TLV. Since the SRv6 Locator TLV is associated with a Prefix NLRI, the "Prefix Metric TLV (TLV 1155)" should be referenced here since the "IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095)" is associated with a Link NLRI.

Verifier note: In addition to the fix proposed by Ketan, I added a preposition: "associated with it".

Errata ID: 8581
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Long Dao
Date Reported: 2025-09-02
Verifier Name: Ketan Talaulikar
Date Verified: 2025-09-30

Section 2. says:

If the SRv6 SIDs had been advertised within the BGP-
   LS Link Attribute associated with the existing Node NLRI, the BGP-LS
   update would have grown rather large ...

It should say:

If the SRv6 SIDs had been advertised within the BGP-
   LS Attribute associated with the existing Node NLRI, the BGP-LS
   update would have grown rather large ...

Notes:

According to RFC 7752, Link Attribute is associated with the Link NLRI, not the Node NLRI. The correct term to be used should be "BGP-LS Attribute", or perhaps "BGP-LS Node Attribute".

Report New Errata