Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your interest and engagement.
Acee

From: Jonathan Natale <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 9:09 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>, Deborah Brungard <[email protected]>, Alvaro Retana 
<[email protected]>, Martin Vigoureux <[email protected]>, 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2328 (5684)

Thanks for the prompt reply, Acee.  I think that answers my confusion; please 
close the errata.

Sorry for the noise.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:14 AM Acee Lindem (acee) 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,

I don't see that there is a problem here. In the case where routers on the 
multi-access network are declaring themselves BDR, only those routers are 
included in the election process. In the case where there aren't any, all 
routers are included.

I recommend this errata be rejected.

Thanks,
Acee

On 4/4/19, 7:00 AM, "RFC Errata System" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328,
    "OSPF Version 2".

    --------------------------------------
    You may review the report below and at:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5684

    --------------------------------------
    Type: Editorial
    Reported by: jonathan natale <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

    Section: 9.4

    Original Text
    -------------
    These two alternatives (~=">=1 BDRs" vs. ~="no BDRs") seem (to me at
    least, maybe I missed the point) to have the same outcome (~="highest
    becomes BDR")--please clarify it:
    If one or more of these
                routers have declared themselves Backup Designated
    Router[alternative1]
                (i.e., they are currently listing themselves as Backup
                Designated Router, but not as Designated Router, in their
                Hello Packets) the one having highest Router Priority is
                declared to be Backup Designated Router.  In case of a tie,
                the one having the highest Router ID is chosen.  If no
                routers have declared themselves Backup Designated
    Router[alternative2],



    Moy                         Standards Track                    [Page 75]

    RFC 2328                     OSPF Version 2                   April 1998


                choose the router having highest Router Priority, (again
                excluding those routers who have declared themselves
                Designated Router), and again use the Router ID to break
                ties.


    Corrected Text
    --------------
    TBD

    Notes
    -----
    It is unclear to me if a BDR should get preempted (I know the BDR should 
not).

    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.

    --------------------------------------
    RFC2328 (no draft string recorded)
    --------------------------------------
    Title               : OSPF Version 2
    Publication Date    : April 1998
    Author(s)           : J. Moy
    Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
    Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
    Area                : Routing
    Stream              : IETF
    Verifying Party     : IESG



--
Jonathan Natale
Technical Solutions Engineer - Arista Networks (NAR)
Direct line: 603 686-8518 or 408 547 5500 x68518    9am to 5pm EDT (GMT-4)
Toll-free support line: +1 866 476 0000 (US), +44 808 234 0722 (UK)
International support line: +1 408 547 5502 or +44 207 023 9352
Please call support if immediate assistance is required.
If you have feedback or concerns at any point during the course of this case, 
please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to