Wes. Mia culpa. I am happy to hear from authors of 4659 and from the WG if they have opinions.
Personally, I hate metadata errata because I have to look up how to process them. But that is hardly an excuse. My main excuse is that errata processing always seems less important than fighting fires. On my list. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George, Wes > Sent: 14 November 2014 04:38 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; martin.vigoureux@alcatel- > lucent.com; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4659 (4087) > > I realize that this sort of switched WGs due to the reorg of routing area, > but how long should an erratum sit without being acknowledged, whether it > is accepted or rejected? > > Thanks, > Wes George > > > On 8/18/14, 12:12 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4659, > >"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN". > > > >-------------------------------------- > >You may review the report below and at: > >http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4659&eid=4087 > > > >-------------------------------------- > >Type: Technical > >Reported by: Wesley George <[email protected]> > > > >Section: GLOBAL > > > >Original Text > >------------- > >No "updates" metadata reference to update RFC4364 > > > >Corrected Text > >-------------- > >This document updates RFC4364 (and associated metadata links) > > > >Notes > >----- > >RFC4659 provides an extension to the standard defined in RFC4364 to add > >IPv6 support to a standard that was originally IPv4-only. This metadata > >link will make it clearer for implementers that both standards are > >necessary for a full implementation. > > > >Instructions: > >------------- > >This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > >-------------------------------------- > >RFC4659 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07) > >-------------------------------------- > >Title : BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension > >for IPv6 VPN > >Publication Date : September 2006 > >Author(s) : J. De Clercq, D. Ooms, M. Carugi, F. Le Faucheur > >Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >Source : Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks INT > >Area : Internet > >Stream : IETF > >Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary > information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to > Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action > taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please > notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy > of this E-mail and any printout. > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
