Looks right (there is no such thing as the “Tunnel Type Extended Community”).
Can the authors please confirm that "Encapsulation Extended Community” is what was intended? Thanks, —John > On Oct 19, 2023, at 5:05 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9135, > "Integrated Routing and Bridging in Ethernet VPN (EVPN)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7684__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BLmHBk44OQyvkjJEadA8wv3hfioxIYAw61RAwOt5B4BHIUSX3RxyYxJc278dsg3rkWOe6mmNMpDq_6jTqbuS7A$ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Denis Vrkic <vrkic.de...@gmail.com> > > Section: 6.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > This route is advertised along with the following extended community: > > * Tunnel Type Extended Community > > Corrected Text > -------------- > This route is advertised along with the following extended community: > > * Encapsulation Extended Community > > Notes > ----- > I guess that solud be Encapsulation Extended Community (or maybe Tunnel > Encapsulation Attribute) > > 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 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9135 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-15) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Integrated Routing and Bridging in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) > Publication Date : October 2021 > Author(s) : A. Sajassi, S. Salam, S. Thoria, J. Drake, J. Rabadan > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : BGP Enabled ServiceS > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
