Verified. Also, note taken that it’s important to do a complete review of the updates to the document before signing off on AUTH48 — the RFC Editor, wonderful though they are, are not subject matter experts and they can and do occasionally make these kinds of mistakes through no fault of their own.
—John > On Apr 13, 2023, at 9:37 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > + 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HMnNdjFA6EA97zRaVooR6nIgNuUrWtqaSqLLJR_lAKyCPDRJFT0pA9ZBhaeQ2TeOzouLy4yePgqL4gg$ >> >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7406__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HMnNdjFA6EA97zRaVooR6nIgNuUrWtqaSqLLJR_lAKyCPDRJFT0pA9ZBhaeQ2TeOzouLy4yeyr6UyXE$ >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HMnNdjFA6EA97zRaVooR6nIgNuUrWtqaSqLLJR_lAKyCPDRJFT0pA9ZBhaeQ2TeOzouLy4yeS-597yQ$ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HMnNdjFA6EA97zRaVooR6nIgNuUrWtqaSqLLJR_lAKyCPDRJFT0pA9ZBhaeQ2TeOzouLy4yeS-597yQ$ >> > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
