Everyone, Here is my very own interpretation, possibly wrong given that I may not have the full history.
The underlying claim of this errata is that the specifications for IPv6 support in IP VPN should officially UPDATE the specifications for IPv4 IP VPNs (RFC4364), so as to convey the idea that "both standards are necessary for a full implementation" of RFC4364. The claim can have its merits, but I'm not sure that any IETF or WG consensus has ever validated this idea. I suspect not, and if so, this can't be handled as a simple metadata fix on RFC4659. What would seem wise to me is to first see if BESS as a working group, support the idea of making v6 support (RFC4659) mandatory for a spec to claim conformance with RFC4364. -Thomas 2014-11-13, Adrian Farrel: > Wes. > Mia culpa. > I am happy to hear from authors of 4659 and from the WG if they have opinions. > > Personally, I hate metadata errata because I have to look up how to process > them. > > But that is hardly an excuse. > My main excuse is that errata processing always seems less important than > fighting fires. > > On my list. > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George, Wes >> Sent: 14 November 2014 04:38 >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; martin.vigoureux@alcatel- >> lucent.com; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4659 (4087) >> >> I realize that this sort of switched WGs due to the reorg of routing area, >> but how long should an erratum sit without being acknowledged, whether it >> is accepted or rejected? >> >> Thanks, >> Wes George >> >> >> On 8/18/14, 12:12 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4659, >>> "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4659&eid=4087 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Technical >>> Reported by: Wesley George <[email protected]> >>> >>> Section: GLOBAL >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> No "updates" metadata reference to update RFC4364 >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> This document updates RFC4364 (and associated metadata links) >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> RFC4659 provides an extension to the standard defined in RFC4364 to add >>> IPv6 support to a standard that was originally IPv4-only. This metadata >>> link will make it clearer for implementers that both standards are >>> necessary for a full implementation. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC4659 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension >>> for IPv6 VPN >>> Publication Date : September 2006 >>> Author(s) : J. De Clercq, D. Ooms, M. Carugi, F. Le Faucheur >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>> Source : Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks INT >>> Area : Internet >>> Stream : IETF >>> Verifying Party : IESG >>> >> >> >> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary >> information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright > belonging to >> Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the > individual or >> entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of >> this > E-mail, >> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or > action >> taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is > strictly >> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, > please >> notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any >> copy >> of this E-mail and any printout. >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
