+ John for approval. > On Apr 13, 2023, at 7:49 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 - please accept this Errata as editorial > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:28 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the > perspective of the IETF document process. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt > > Note that LSP is not asterisked as being well known and “Label Switched Path” > is the first alternative. It should always be expanded on first use. > > The Editorial Errata should be accepted. This is something we should watch > for in documents specifying IS-IS. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Mar 27, 2023, at 11:58 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Barry, > > > > Looks like RFC Editor expanded the "LSP" abbreviation as version -26 (last > > before publication) says this: > > > > The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV MAY be advertised in an LSP of any number. IS- > > IS router MAY advertise more than one IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV for a given > > Flexible Algorithm (see Section 6). > > > > > > Rgs, > > R. > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 8:34 PM RFC Errata System > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9350, > > "IGP Flexible Algorithm". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7406 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Barry Friedman <[email protected]> > > > > Section: 5.1 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > The IS-IS FAD sub-TLV MAY be advertised in a > > Label Switched Path (LSP) of any number. > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > The IS-IS FAD sub-TLV MAY be advertised in a > > Link State PDU (LSP) of any number. > > > > Notes > > ----- > > I assume LSP is meant to refer to the PDU carrying the FAD, not a Label > > Switched Path. > > > > 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. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9350 (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-26) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : IGP Flexible Algorithm > > Publication Date : February 2023 > > Author(s) : P. Psenak, Ed., S. Hegde, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, > > A. Gulko > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Link State Routing > > Area : Routing > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
