Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7307 (5146)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7307,
"LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5146

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>

Section: 4.3.3

Original Text
-------------
   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to the LDP IPv6 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-
   Topology ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.

Corrected Text
--------------
   The format of the MT LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 32) is similar to
   the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 2) as defined in [RFC4379].  In
   addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix Length" fields already
   defined in the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV, the new MT LDP IPv6 prefix 
   sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-Topology ID) field.  While
   the length of the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV is 17 (and does not include
   the trailing MBZ bytes), the length of this new MT LDP IPv6 prefix
   sub-TLV is 20 (and does include the internal MBZ byte).

Notes
-----
The original text uses "this sub-TLV" in ways that can be ambiguous. In particular, the final sentence "The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.” is incorrect if "this sub-TLV" refers to the topic of the section, i.e., "MT LDP IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV", but is correct if "this sub-TLV" refers to the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV defined in RFC4379/RFC8029. The revised text is suggested to remove the ambiguities. Adrian Farrell provided the bulk of the suggested revisions.

In addition, the sub-TLV names are changed to match the names that were registered in the IANA registry, to aid those trying to find the registry entries.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7307 (draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology
Publication Date    : July 2014
Author(s)           : Q. Zhao, K. Raza, C. Zhou, L. Fang, L. Li, D. King
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG