Hi all, IMHO, this erratum is correct, but the proposed fix is incorrect.
In this case, the original text seeks to use ‘IS’ as an abbreviation for ‘Intermediate System’ (i.e., router). Thus, a better fix would be: One of the limitations of IS-IS [ISO10589] is that the length of a TLV/sub-TLV is limited to a maximum of 255 octets. For the FAD sub- TLV, there are a number of sub-sub-TLVs (defined below) that are supported. For a given Flex-Algorithm, it is possible that the total number of octets required to completely define a FAD exceeds the maximum length supported by a single FAD sub-TLV. In such cases, the FAD MAY be split into multiple such sub-TLVs, and the content of the multiple FAD sub-TLVs are combined to provide a complete FAD for the Flex-Algorithm. In such a case, the fixed portion of the FAD (see Section 5.1) MUST be identical in all FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex- Algorithm from a given IS (Intermediate System). Please note the recurrence of the use of ‘IS’ in the next sentence and again in the next paragraph. Regards, Tony > On Mar 4, 2023, at 1:28 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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/eid7376 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmal...@protokols.ru> > > Section: 6 > > Original Text > ------------- > One of the limitations of IS-IS [ISO10589] is that the length of a > TLV/sub-TLV is limited to a maximum of 255 octets. For the FAD sub- > TLV, there are a number of sub-sub-TLVs (defined below) that are > supported. For a given Flex-Algorithm, it is possible that the total > number of octets required to completely define a FAD exceeds the > maximum length supported by a single FAD sub-TLV. In such cases, the > FAD MAY be split into multiple such sub-TLVs, and the content of the > multiple FAD sub-TLVs are combined to provide a complete FAD for the > Flex-Algorithm. In such a case, the fixed portion of the FAD (see > Section 5.1) MUST be identical in all FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex- > Algorithm from a given IS. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > One of the limitations of IS-IS [ISO10589] is that the length of a > TLV/sub-TLV is limited to a maximum of 255 octets. For the FAD sub- > TLV, there are a number of sub-sub-TLVs (defined below) that are > supported. For a given Flex-Algorithm, it is possible that the total > number of octets required to completely define a FAD exceeds the > maximum length supported by a single FAD sub-TLV. In such cases, the > FAD MAY be split into multiple such sub-TLVs, and the content of the > multiple FAD sub-TLVs are combined to provide a complete FAD for the > Flex-Algorithm. In such a case, the fixed portion of the FAD (see > Section 5.1) MUST be identical in all FAD sub-TLVs for a given Flex- > Algorithm from a given IS-IS. > > Notes > ----- > Incorrect name of protocol (IS instead IS-IS). > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9350 (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-26) > -------------------------------------- > Title : IGP Flexible Algorithm > Publication Date : February 2023 > Author(s) : P. Psenak, Ed., S. Hegde, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, > A. Gulko > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Link State Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
