Subject: [mpls] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3209 (4733)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC3209, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3209&eid=4733

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Ramakrishna DTV <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2016-07-06
Held by: Deborah Brungard (IESG)

Section: 4.3.2

Original Text
-------------
   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   set of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node consists
   of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

Corrected Text
--------------
   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   sequence of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node 
   consists of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

Notes
-----
s/set/sequence

A set implies ordering of abstract nodes is NOT important.
A sequence implies ordering of abstract nodes IS important.

In the rest of RFC 3209, this distinction is maintained, but not
in this paragraph.

--------------------------------------
RFC3209 (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
Publication Date    : December 2001
Author(s)           : D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. Swallow
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG