Thanks Bill - noted and will fix in the next revision. > On Nov 27, 2023, at 15:20, William Atwood <william.atwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In the abstract, line 4: > s/prevision/previous/ > > Bill Atwood > > On 11/27/2023 2:36 PM, The IESG wrote: >> Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca domain. // Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur du domaine de concordia.ca >> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG >> (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'Virtual Router Redundancy >> Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6' >> <draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-12.txt> as Proposed Standard >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2023-12-11. Exceptionally, comments may >> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning >> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> Abstract >> This document defines version 3 of the Virtual Router Redundancy >> Protocol (VRRP) for IPv4 and IPv6. It is based on VRRP (version 2) >> for IPv4 that is defined in RFC 3768 and in "Virtual Router >> Redundancy Protocol for IPv6", and obsoletes the prevision >> specification of this version documented in RFC 5798. VRRP specifies >> an election protocol that dynamically assigns responsibility for a >> Virtual Router to one of the VRRP Routers on a LAN. The VRRP Router >> controlling the IPv4 or IPv6 address(es) associated with a Virtual >> Router is called the Active Router, and it forwards packets sent to >> these IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Active Routers are configured with >> virtual IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, and Backup Routers infer the address >> family of the virtual addresses being advertised based on the IP >> protocol version. Within a VRRP Router, the Virtual Routers in each >> of the IPv4 and IPv6 address families are independent of one another >> and always treated as separate Virtual Router instances. The >> election process provides dynamic failover in the forwarding >> responsibility should the Active Router become unavailable. For >> IPv4, the advantage gained from using VRRP is a higher-availability >> default path without requiring configuration of dynamic routing or >> router discovery protocols on every end-host. For IPv6, the >> advantage gained from using VRRP for IPv6 is a quicker switchover to >> Backup Routers than can be obtained with standard IPv6 Neighbor >> Discovery mechanisms. >> The VRRP terminology has been updated to conform to inclusive >> language guidelines for IETF technologies. The IETF has designated >> National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for >> NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards" for >> its inclusive language guidelines. >> The file can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>> > > -- > Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 > Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 > Department of Computer Science > and Software Engineering > Concordia University ER 1234 email:william.atwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx > 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill > Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
