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 o
+ John for approval.
> On Apr 13, 2023, at 7:49 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> +1 - please accept this Errata as editorial
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:28 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the
> perspective of the
+1 - please accept this Errata as editorial
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:28 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the
> perspective of the IETF document process.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
>
> Note t
That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the perspective
of the IETF document process.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
Note that LSP is not asterisked as being well known and “Label Switched Path”
is the first alternative. It should always be exp
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
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9350,
"IGP Flexible Algorithm".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7406
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Barry Friedman
Secti
