This should be rejected. it is not a correction of something inaccurate,
but rather a clarifying question.
To answer the question, the statement refers to the fact that an SP can
enable AS transition mechanisms and complete one part of the transition
(their side can move from ASN to ASN') without coordination with the
customer - thus the transition is transparent. But the SP can never
disable those transition mechanisms and complete the transition fully to
the new ASN without coordination with the remote side to reconfigure and
point to the new ASN'
On 10/26/2022 12:03 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8206,
"BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7183
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]>
Section: 3
Original Text
-------------
Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and
therefore do not require coordination with customers, they do not have as much
control over the length of the transition period as they might with something
completely under their administrative control
Corrected Text
--------------
Since SPs are using migration methods that are transparent to customers and
therefore do not require coordination with customers, they can transition at
any time without delay.
Notes
-----
I have no corrected text. If the migration methods are transparent, how is it possible
that SPs "do not have as much control over the length of the transition period as
they might with something completely under their administrative control"? As it's
transparent they would in fact have complete administrative control.
Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC8206 (draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-06)
--------------------------------------
Title : BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration
Publication Date : September 2017
Author(s) : W. George, S. Murphy
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
Area : Routing
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
