Hi Les,
Yes that’s about right, except I think the changes could be processed either as
a bis or as a so-called “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially
similar to the errata you submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW: blocks, for
example) that Updates: RFC 8919.
The IESG has in the past
John –
If I interpret the essence of your comments correctly, you are expressing a
preference that the proposed changes be handled via a BIS draft rather than an
errata.
I don’t have an objection to that – and in some ways it makes sense to me.
However, I have not been pleased (in general)
-rfc-editor
… and it looks like the issues I brought up in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/i_oz5jSXFqSomn94zJFM2zqs5uw/ apply
here too.
—John
On Jul 6, 2021, at 4:28 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
LSR WG,
This Errata is also an outcome of the
-rfc-editor
Hi All,
This kind of erratum requires careful consideration and I’d appreciate it if
the WG were to weigh in. In particular, without reviewing the RFC and mailing
list carefully (which I’ve not yet done, but will) it’s unclear to me if the
proposed erratum meets this criterion:
The following errata report has been verified for RFC8668,
"Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6957
--
Status:
