Hi Hannes, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 4:38 AM, Hannes Gredler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have used similar textblocks for the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 SR extensions and I > am not aware > of any questions from implementators around ambiguity.
Thanks for the pointer, I’ll take a look at those, too. > IMO there is clear enough language to describe proper encoding of the > prefix-SID subTLV and > I am not sure why an "erratum" is required. I agree that, after reconsidering the text in light of Les’s reply, it’s not a technical error (or “bug” as I put it in the subject line). However, offline feedback from a couple of other experienced protocol implementors indicates to me that I’m not the only one who finds the presentation of the information to be unclear [1] and not as helpful as it could be to someone using the document as a reference instead of doing an in-depth read-through. BTW if there’s some nuance to the quotation marks you used around “erratum” I’m missing it. Errata are a normal part of our process, and erratum is just the singular of errata. [2] Thanks, —John [1] This quote doesn’t quite apply, but it’s a humorous way of illustrating that information can be provided without being made available as clearly as it could be. http://hitchhikerguidetothegalaxy.blogspot.com/2006/04/beware-of-leopard-douglas-adams-quote.html [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
