That’s correct, an editorial mis-expansion of the acronym LSP. It should be
“Link State Packet”.
On Sep 20, 2016, at 4:27 AM, Alexander Vainshtein
I have found the following problematic text in Section 10.1.2 of RFC 5882:
If multiple topologies are used to support multiple data protocols (or
multiple classes of service of the same data protocol), the topology-
specific path associated with a failing BFD session should no longer
be advertised in IS-IS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in order to signal
a lack of connectivity.
I suspect that LSP in this context stands for Link State Packet and not for
Label Switched Path.
If my understanding is correct, is this observation worth an Editorial Errata?