Re: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Much thanks for the catch. I've verified - hopefully this meets your criteria for SOON as I would not want to be an example in your draft:-)

Deborah


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:46 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
> 
> Looking at the IANA section for draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12.txt which is
> in flight with the IANA team, we discovered that the Object-Type value of 0 is
> not mentioned in nearly every entry at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_pcep_pcep.xhtml-23pcep-
> 2Dobjects&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=NE2thC9Tljil9xWVP8oIBIXIM2nY4X5Vel0ElRI
> B2zw&e=
> 
> Looking back at RFC 5440 (and at some more recent RFCs) I think the intention
> was that an Object-Type of 0 should not be used (perhaps the first PCEP
> implementation was written in Pascal?).
> 
> Thus, this Errata Report proposes that IANA be instructed to mark ALL
> Object-Type 0 entries as "Reserved".
> 
> Largely speaking, this just fills in missing information, but it changes the 0
> values for:
> 
> LSP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
> SRP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
> VENDOR-INFORMATION RFC 7470 (0 is "Unassigned")
> BU draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware (0 currently "Unassigned")
> 
> It would also be wise to mark the unassigned Object Classes to read...
> OLD
> 36-255 Unassigned 1-15: Unassigned
> NEW
> 36-255 Unassigned 0: Reserved
>                                         1-15: Unassigned
> 
> Since two of these documents are in late-stage RFC Editor processing, I suggest
> the ADs would do well to act SOON.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> > Sent: 01 March 2017 10:30
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; text/[e-mail]; rfc-editor@rfc-
> editor.orgContent-
> > Type; [e-mail]; charset=[e-mail]
> > Subject: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5440,
> > "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
> 2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5440-26eid-
> 3D4956&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=nD7-oTxeqDLDwDFIhk-
> taL1kYPVOoqBVUEVETZwUdMk&e=
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Editorial
> > Reported by: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 9.3
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> >
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> >
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > This section does not tell IANA the range for the Object-Types to be
> registered
> > for each Object-Class, nor what to do with the values not assigned in this
> > document.
> >
> > IANA has correctly recognised that the top value is 15, and that the values
> > between those shown here and 15 should be marked as "Unassigned."
> >
> > However, there is confusion over the value 0 for an Object-Type. The old
> entries
> > (arising from RFC 5440) do not mention 0. Newer entries for RFC 7470 and
> several
> > I-Ds in the pipe mark 0 as Unassigned.
> >
> > For consistency, ALL 0 Object-Types should be marked "Reserved".
> >
> > (This might need an Errata Report against some other RFCs if you are
> particularly
> > fussy, but I think we can do it all on this report.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC5440 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-19)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
> (PCEP)
> > Publication Date    : March 2009
> > Author(s)           : JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed.
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Path Computation Element
> > Area                : Routing
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pce&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=dNNwtvf5IuP6oBe28khBLWrQenNDCXUiFxT
> BBnzEZo0&e=