FWIW, this should be rejected. The original text is correct and more than sufficient.
Bharat - you might want to check these with others in advance of issuing them as errata.
Joe On 6/12/2013 1:58 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4364, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4364&eid=3648 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Bharat Joshi <[email protected]> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- If two routes to the same IP address prefix are actually routes to different systems, it is important to ensure that BGP not treat them as comparable. Corrected Text -------------- If two routes to the same IP address prefix are actually routes to two different systems, it is important to ensure that BGP not treat them as comparable. Notes ----- 'routes to different system' should be 'routes to two different system' Instructions: ------------- This errata 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. -------------------------------------- RFC4364 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03) -------------------------------------- Title : BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) Publication Date : February 2006 Author(s) : E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks INT Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
