Acee,
if you ask me, I would not do anything. "IS" is correct in the text and
it's well known.
my 2c,
Peter
On 05/03/2023 14:32, Acee Lindem wrote:
Hi Tony,
On Mar 4, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote:
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.
Strictly speaking, the expansion is not required as IS in the context of IS-IS
is “well-known” as per
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt. However, I agree
that expansion on first use is an improvement.
Thanks,
Acee
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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
