IANA, Please update https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#evpn as follows, per the author's reply.
OLD: 0x0F Service Carving Timestamp NEW: 0x0F Service Carving Time Side note: It seems odd that the Protocol Action mail (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/oA8EsgQpKfStDY39E1fRSg-UxH8/) contained an "IANA Note" that doesn't match the approved I-D itself. Perhaps that's where this came from. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Apr 28, 2025, at 4:34 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > 7) <!--[rfced] "Service Carving Time" vs. "Service Carving Timestamp" > > The document and the IANA registry do not match regarding the name > of the new BGP EVPN Extended Community; which one is correct? > (Please see A vs. B below.) Based on your reply, please > review other sections for updates (examples below). > > A) Original > 0x0F Service Carving Time > > B) IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/) > 0x0F Service Carving Timestamp > On May 8, 2025, at 2:35 PM, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <lbur...@cisco.com> wrote: > > • The document normalised terminology onto “Service Carving Time“ a few > versions back – IANA should be updated and I did a sweep in the XML for > “Service Carving Timestamp” to remove all instances I previously missed. On Dec 13, 2024, at 9:59 AM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <drafts-appro...@iana.org> wrote: > RFC Editor: > > We've completed the actions for the following RFC-to-be: > > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12 > > ACTION 1: > > We've added the following entry to the EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types > registry: > > 0x0F Service Carving Timestamp [RFC-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12] > > Please see > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities [...] -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
