Subject: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:02:59 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4427,
"Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4427&eid=1835

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>

Section: 6.3

Original Text
-------------
6.3. M:N (M, N > 1, N >= M) Protection

   M:N protection has N working LSPs/spans carrying normal traffic and M
   protection LSP/span that may carry extra-traffic.

Corrected Text
--------------
6.3. M:N (M, N > 1, N >= M > 1) Protection

   M:N protection has N working LSPs/spans carrying normal traffic and M
   protection LSP/span that may carry extra-traffic.

Notes
-----
M > 1 is added

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC4427 (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-06)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Publication Date    : March 2006
Author(s)           : E. Mannie, Ed., D. Papadimitriou, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Common Control and Measurement Plane
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:43:59 -0400

In this case, the additional "M > 1" is redundant, since the parenthesized
statement starts by stating that _both_ M and N are reater than 1 - i.e. -
"M, N > 1" equates to "M > 1, N > 1"

The text referred to is correct as is.

--
Eric 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:03 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)

Section: 6.3

Original Text
-------------

Corrected Text
--------------

Notes
-----
M > 1 is added

Instructions:
-------------

--------------------------------------
RFC4427 (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-06)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Publication Date    : March 2006
Author(s)           : E. Mannie, Ed., D. Papadimitriou, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Common Control and Measurement Plane
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:58:51 -0700

Hi Eric,

Now I see it that way. However I got confused as "," is a seperator
both for multiple conditions as well as multiple elements in a
condition.

The best way would be to put it would be only one condition (same for
the other Errata):

N >= M > 1.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:36:55 -0400

Vishwas,

	The errata system is somewhat erratic.  Changes that are not
absolutely necessary tend to discredit/devalue the utility of the
(already easy to ignore) errata process.

	If we had to make a change (to clarify what is understandably
not very clear) it would be better to reduce the redundancy.  I'd 
offer as a possibly better "fix" -

	Replace "(M, N > 1, N >= M)" with "(N >= M > 1)"

- which is what I think you're now suggesting as well.

	But that brings us back to the point - is this change really
necessary at all?

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:59 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: RFC Errata System; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4427 (1835)
Importance: High

Hi Eric,

N >= M > 1.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:25:15 -0700

Hi Eric,

Thats correct. I am ok with the suggestions you mention (which is what
I am saying too).

Thanks,
Vishwas