Hi Jeffrey, “SN” is used throughout the document and stands for “Subnet”, as written in the terminology section. The text specifies that SN1 is a /24 prefix, so whether or not the figure includes the subnet masks was considered irrelevant to the description of the procedures. I don’t see any ambiguity in the text as written.
I think Gunter’s suggestion is good. Thank you. Jorge From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 1:39 PM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_velde=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com>, jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>, saja...@cisco.com <saja...@cisco.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9136 (8474) CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi, I was away for two weeks and did not get to check email. It may be a moot point now, but to clarify my original intention: - The Figure 5 is bit intense, and I was trying to find out where SN1/24 is in the figure by doing a search of "SN1/24" (but could not find it). - Turns out that the figure only has SN1 not SN1/24. Therefore, I was suggesting to change "written as SN1/24 in the future" to "written as SN1 in the figure". That probably matches the original intention the best, and it does help people (like me) to locate SN1 by doing a text search. In short, I think "future" is a typo of "figure", and "SN1/24" is a typo of "SN1". While they're only editorial typo issues, changing that would help the readers. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:43 AM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_velde=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; jdr...@juniper.net; Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>; saja...@cisco.com; bess@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9136 (8474) [External Email. Be cautious of content] Removing RFC editor to reduce their churn and fixing my own typo bug to fix the errata: So that would mean: s/(written as SN1/24 in the future)/(hereafter referred to as SN1/24)/ > Original Text > ------------- 752 An example of inter-subnet forwarding between subnet SN1, which uses 753 a 24-bit IP prefix (written as SN1/24 in the future), and a subnet 754 sitting in the WAN is described below. NVE2, NVE3, DGW1, and DGW2 755 are running BGP EVPN. TS2 and TS3 do not participate in dynamic 756 routing protocols, and they only have a static route to forward the 757 traffic to the WAN. SN1/24 is dual-homed to NVE2 and NVE3.> New text: ------------ 752 An example of inter-subnet forwarding between subnet SN1, which uses 753 a 24-bit IP prefix (hereafter referred to as SN1/24), and a subnet 754 sitting in the WAN is described below. NVE2, NVE3, DGW1, and DGW2 755 are running BGP EVPN. TS2 and TS3 do not participate in dynamic 756 routing protocols, and they only have a static route to forward the 757 traffic to the WAN. SN1/24 is dual-homed to NVE2 and NVE3.> Thoughts? G/ -----Original Message----- From: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_velde=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:36 PM To: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Cc: zzh...@juniper.net; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; jdr...@juniper.net; w...@juniper.net; saja...@cisco.com; bess@ietf.org; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Subject: [bess] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9136 (8474) Hi Madison. Many thanks. Hi Jeffrey, BESS WG, Many thanks for submitting the errata. While processing this errata, I have a clarification question, as I am not convinced the errata is correct: (rendering line numbers via: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fidnits%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A**Awww.rfc-editor.org*rfc*rfc9136.txt__%3BLy8vLw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lRyihvo0%24&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876088187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zuLYQA3JF4FaaRUsl01KX%2FjdnDKo5%2BZHI%2BDzLIqwatw%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https:**Awww.rfc-editor.org*rfc*rfc9136.txt__;Ly8vLw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lRyihvo0$> ) The first instance of "SN1" is on line number 285 (in the Figure 1) and line 325 (in te body of text) The first instance of "SN1/24" is on line number 753 (=much later and after explanation is means a /24 subnet of SN1 on line 752 & 753) This brings me to the suggested errata: > Original Text > ------------- 752 An example of inter-subnet forwarding between subnet SN1, which uses 753 a 24-bit IP prefix (written as SN1/24 in the future), and a subnet 754 sitting in the WAN is described below. NVE2, NVE3, DGW1, and DGW2 755 are running BGP EVPN. TS2 and TS3 do not participate in dynamic 756 routing protocols, and they only have a static route to forward the 757 traffic to the WAN. SN1/24 is dual-homed to NVE2 and NVE3.> From the above I see that a SN1 subnet of /24 is abbreviated as "SN1/24" and that this abbreviation is used from that point onwards in the document. Hence, I am not so convinced that the proposed errata (see below) is correct. I think it would be more correct to replace the the text "(written as SN1/24 in the future)" with "(hereafter referred to as SN1/24)" So that would mean: s/(written as SN1/24 in the future)/(written as SN1/24 in the future)/ Any thoughts on my above understanding? G/ -----Original Message----- From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 3:34 PM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> Cc: zzh...@juniper.net; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; jdr...@juniper.net; w...@juniper.net; saja...@cisco.com; bess@ietf.org; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9136 (8474) CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Gunter, We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata-definitions%2F__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lMq9UzBk%24&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876118837%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zES8gyoNtD%2BY2Ny9X9zNZQ9NHwBTdWUMSMKWHxVvfLI%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lMq9UzBk$> ). You may review the report at: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid8474__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8ldrK9Jrg%24&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876134482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wLTiA7EAs%2Bt0xkbpTLHYvsXnP1Od5cPpthcSpa%2BHjqA%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8474__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8ldrK9Jrg$> Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fhow-to-verify%2F__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lOak_MgI%24&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876148658%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=33dvpmKnKbJN9DTW3dxge1Fnqee%2FrJKAeO3x9DKzaSI%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lOak_MgI$> Further information on errata can be found at: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata.php__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lnoV515Q%24&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876162354%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dw3s15F%2F5AB7m3Qaz2gS7RxPlh84oJI2oV62zDGQRoM%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeBOb74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8lnoV515Q$> Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Jun 20, 2025, at 9:06 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9136, "IP Prefix > Advertisement in Ethernet VPN (EVPN)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid8474_&data=05%7C02%7Cjorge.rabadan%40nokia.com%7C9d6ad0ac22bb4e77695508ddc3168d64%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638881223876176146%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TQXd69c7BKmtMSmzsL2aZZo8dkBZQkyRU%2BXppq9I%2B20%3D&reserved=0<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8474_> > _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cfa5lajdb_iQzT7THczWpMpyQ_e1dI0rEAUK-vbVnLlJxxIrUaYeeB > Ob74dqV9mP6rVl5oIEDk2IS1jyZy8ldrK9Jrg$ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> > > Section: 4.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > An example of inter-subnet forwarding between subnet SN1, which uses > a 24-bit IP prefix (written as SN1/24 in the future), and a subnet > sitting in the WAN is described below. NVE2, NVE3, DGW1, and DGW2 > are running BGP EVPN. TS2 and TS3 do not participate in dynamic > routing protocols, and they only have a static route to forward the > traffic to the WAN. SN1/24 is dual-homed to NVE2 and NVE3. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > An example of inter-subnet forwarding between subnet SN1, which uses > a 24-bit IP prefix (written as SN1 in the figure), and a subnet > sitting in the WAN is described below. NVE2, NVE3, DGW1, and DGW2 > are running BGP EVPN. TS2 and TS3 do not participate in dynamic > routing protocols, and they only have a static route to forward the > traffic to the WAN. SN1/24 is dual-homed to NVE2 and NVE3. > > Notes > ----- > There are two editor issues in the original "(written as SN1/24 in the > future)". > "future" should be "figure". > "SN1/24" should be "SN1". > > I am reporting these two minor ones mainly because the second one was causing > me some trouble when I was trying to locate SN1 in the figure - the search > just could not find "SN1/24". > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use > "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When > a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the > status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9136 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11) > -------------------------------------- > Title : IP Prefix Advertisement in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) > Publication Date : October 2021 > Author(s) : J. Rabadan, Ed., W. Henderickx, J. Drake, W. Lin, A. > Sajassi > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : BGP Enabled ServiceS > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
