Hi Jeff, I think we’ve agreed that the Errata should be accepted. We’ll need to update our IOS-XR implementation to support the updated interpretation with the single octet Reserved field removed and a TLV length of 4.
All, When you are reviewing/implementing drafts or RFCs and encounter discrepancies like this, please report them to the appropriate IETF list ASAP. Thanks, Acee P.S. There has also been some discussion of a quick BIS version of RFC 7810. From: Jeff Haas <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:10 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Spencer Giacalone <[email protected]>, John E Drake <[email protected]>, Alia Atlas <[email protected]>, Deborah Brungard <[email protected]>, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Olivier Dugeon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7810 (5293) Acee, On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I agree. It appears the error in the RFC has been interpreted multiple ways and I’m leaning towards the recommending the Errata being accepted as submitted given the format in OSPF (RFC 7471) and the BGP-LS TE-PM draft. It would be interesting to hear what your implementation does. To close this particular loop, JunOS doesn't currently support RFC 7810. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
