The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8214,
"Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7837
--
Type: Technical
John,
Lots of thanks for the clarification. HFDU seems good enough.
Regards,
Sasha
From: John Scudder
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:44 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7837)
Indeed, opinions may vary as to the
Indeed, opinions may vary as to the adjective to apply to “clear” (“crystal”
vs. “insufficiently” for instance) but the underlying point remains that the
proposed erratum is an improvement, not a correction of an error, and so isn’t
a candidate for verification other than as HFDU, per
John,
Speaking just for myself, I can say that the intent was not crystal clear for
me – may be my personal problem, of course.
I have looked up the latest version of the 7432bis draft, and I see that the
authors have added the highlighted text in Section 7.11:
This looks like a candidate “hold for document update”. The original document
doesn’t seem to be in error, the erratum is just suggesting some editorial
improvements/clarifications. Note that RFC 2119 keywords are not mandatory [*]
in IETF specifications, what’s important is that the intent is
