Re: Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report

Hi Adrian,
The Errata Report is correct based on RFC 5798. 

Thanks
kalyan

-----Original Message-----
From: vrrp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 5:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [VRRP] Second call for help with a VRRP Errata Report

Second appeal for help. Also including the Routing Directorate.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vrrp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 18 November 2014 18:24
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [VRRP] Help needed with a VRRP Errata Report
> 
> Hi VRRP enthusiasts,
> 
> A report has been submitted against RFC6527, "Definitions of Managed 
> Objects for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 (VRRPv3)". 
> You can see it at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6527&eid=4168
> 
> The essence is that the Description clause of the 
> vrrpv3OperationsAcceptMode object appears to limit its meaning to IPv6 
> addresses. However, section 6.1 of RFC 5798 describes Accept_Mode as applying to IPvX which implies IPv4 or IPv6.
> 
> Instruction 635 does appear to be limited to IPv6, but instruction 650 
> is clearly relevant to both IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> I think the report is correct.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Email secured by Check Point.

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp