Hi All, For this errata it seems that the header lacks “Updates: 4271”. Section 1 nevertheless explicitly says it updates RFC 4271’s best-path procedures.
Is that correct? Or was this omission intentional? G/ Sent from my iPad > On 5 Nov 2026, at 17:54, [email protected] wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC10039, > "Interconnecting EVPN and IPVPN Domains" > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9290/ > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Paul Aitken <[email protected]> > > Section 1 says: > > Original Text > ------------- > Accordingly, this document updates the BGP best-path selection procedures > specified in [RFC4271] > > Corrected Text > -------------- > . > > Notes > ----- > The document header does not carry an "Updates: 4271" clause, and the > Abstract does not mention the update. Either the header and Abstract should > reflect the update relationship, or the normative-sounding "updates ... > [RFC4271]" text should be softened to describe the extension without > asserting a formal "Updates" relationship. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC10039 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Interconnecting EVPN and IPVPN Domains > Publication Date : September 2026 > Author(s) : J. Rabadan, Ed., A. Sajassi, Ed., J. Drake, W. Lin, J. > Uttaro, A. Simpson > Category : Proposed Standard > Source : bess (rtg) > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
