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 clear, and I think the intent is crystal clear with the lowercase “mandatory“.
Unless there’s disagreement, I’ll verify this as HFDU later this week. —John [*] see what I did there? > On Mar 5, 2024, at 5:50 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7837__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ECfJun-NPxU03B9Sfleq6xIj3IAePWsksETEL7ltxPlKDab3vqjlsXLZwlk3CGcfbqzdDpIW8cKMZwUTyuXDWw$ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> > > Section: 3.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be included with > per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is mandatory if multihoming is > enabled. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be included with > per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. > > If multihoming is enabled, this attribute is MANDATORY regardless of whether > the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is advertised by an EVPN-VPWS instance or by a > "bridging" EVPN instance. > > > > Notes > ----- > The lower-case "mandatory" used in the original text does not represent any > form of requirement in IETF documents, therefore replacing with upper-case > "MANDATORY" is needed. > > The reference to per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes advertised by both "bridging" > EVPN and EVPN-VPWS is needed to remove possible doubts about the scope of > this requirement since the standard is about EVPN-VPWS. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8214 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN > Publication Date : August 2017 > Author(s) : S. Boutros, A. Sajassi, S. Salam, J. Drake, J. Rabadan > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : BGP Enabled ServiceS > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
