The errata is correct. Not sure how one could spot this error by proof-reading only the text version.
Cheers, Ole > On 7 Aug 2024, at 20:35, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Any taker on this erratum ? I was only following softwire WG from far away... > > -éric > > From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 2 August 2024 at 19:56 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, Wojciech Dec (wdec) <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [Softwires] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7599 (8063) > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7599, > "Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8063 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Scott Freemire <[email protected]> > > Section: 5 > > Original Text > ------------- > The MAP-T algorithmic mapping rules are identical to those in > Section 5(link #1) of the MAP-E specification [RFC7597](link #2), with the > following > exception: the forwarding of traffic to and from IPv4 destinations > outside a MAP-T domain is to be performed as described in this > document, instead of Section 5.4(link #3) of the MAP-E specification. > > link #1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7599#section-5 > link #2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7597 > link #3: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7599#section-5.4 > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The MAP-T algorithmic mapping rules are identical to those in > Section 5(link #1) of the MAP-E specification [RFC7597](link #2), with the > following > exception: the forwarding of traffic to and from IPv4 destinations > outside a MAP-T domain is to be performed as described in this > document, instead of Section 5.4(link #3) of the MAP-E specification. > > link #1: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7597#section-5 > link #2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7597 > link #3: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7597#section-5.4 > > Notes > ----- > The text in section 5 is correct, but 2 of the URL links are incorrect. > All links in section 5 should point to RFC7597. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7599 (draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) > Publication Date : July 2015 > Author(s) : X. Li, C. Bao, W. Dec, Ed., O. Troan, S. Matsushima, T. > Murakami > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Softwires > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
