All, Since section is 11 is describing the contents of a single routing table entry, there is only one destination and adding "same" would be redundant. Hence, I recommend that this errata be rejected. Thanks, Acee On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:39 PM, RFC Errata System 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_search.php?rfc=2328&eid=3452 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: David Jet <[email protected]> > > Section: 11 > > Original Text > ------------- > Multiple LSAs may reference the destination, however a tie-breaking scheme > always reduces the choice to a single LSA. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Multiple LSAs may reference the same destination, however a tie-breaking > scheme always reduces the choice to a single LSA. > > Notes > ----- > I think should add the "same" to describe it more clearly. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) > -------------------------------------- > Title : OSPF Version 2 > Publication Date : April 1998 > Author(s) : J. Moy > Category : STANDARD > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
