Hi BESS WG, RFC 8214 authors, errata submitter, I was looking at this erratum against RFC 8214,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7562 The erratum proposes making the following change — OLD: In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. NEW: In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE SHOULD set the P Flag. I was just about to reject it since changing “will” to “SHOULD” isn’t a proper use for an erratum, but then I realized that maybe the submitter has hidden the real point of the erratum down in the final note: "SHOULD and not MUST is proposed to avoid potential issues with implementations that did not set P flag in the L2 Attributes Extended Community in All-Active multi-homing scenarios (since this was not required) and would suddenly become non-compliant if the text were changed to from "will" to MUST.” That is, the submitter seems to be saying that there are valid reasons to not set the P-flag, and that the text requiring it was wrong at the time of publication. (Although written with the English word “will”, the obvious reading is as if it were “MUST”, is the submitter’s point I think.) If the WG agrees that is true, then I think the erratum could be rewritten and verified. If the WG doesn’t agree, probably it should be rejected as I was initially planning. —John _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
