Hi Alex, I don’t really agree with the precedent of going back and improving existing documents through errata. My view of errata is that it is meant to correct things that are wrong rather than add improvements and clarifications. However, I’ll leave the decision to the ADs.
Note that we currently have several documents in the WG last call or “Publication Requested” state and it would be great if you’d focus your efforts there. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ttz/ Thanks, Acee From: Alexander Okonnikov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 9:48 PM To: RFC Errata System <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Liem Nguyen (lhnguyen)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Deborah Brungard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6987 (4685) Hello Acee, Yes, it is addition, but I have no idea about another way how to add this clarification rather than via errata tool. Thank you. 6 мая 2016 г., 4:40 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, писал: The text below is technically correct (other than the grammar). However, I’d view it more as additional information than an actual errata. Thanks, Acee On 5/5/16, 8:17 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6987, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6987&eid=4685 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alexander Okonnikov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- (At the end of the section) If the stub router is located in transit area, crossed by virtual link(s), latter will become inoperational in case the stub router is on path between two virtual link endpoints - either due to only path in transit area or due to topology changes which move stub router onto this path. Notes ----- Virtual links become inoperational in case path metric between two endpoints is > 0xffff. Path metric of two or more links, one of which has MaxLinkMetric, will inevitably exceed value 0xffff. 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6987 (draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-04) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Stub Router Advertisement Publication Date : September 2013 Author(s) : A. Retana, L. Nguyen, A. Zinin, R. White, D. McPherson Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
