Re: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5520 (3582)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi PCE,

Dhurv's Errata Report at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5520&eid=3582 seems to make a
good point. The RBNF in RFC 5520 appears to offer the presence of two copies of
<BANDWIDTH> without any explanation, but also to not allow <BANDWIDTH> to be
present alongside the <RRO>.

I can see how this happened...
Revision -08 of draft-ietf-pce-pcep used exactly the formulation that found its
way into RFC5520, but by the time PCEP became RFC 5440, this issue had been
resolved in the PCEP spec. Obviously the fix did not get applied across to the
Path Key document.

I propose to accept this Errata Report, but since I am a co-author, I just want
to poll the WG to make sure no=one objects.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 05 April 2013 09:45
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5520 (3582)
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5520,
> "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a
> Path-Key-Based Mechanism".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5520&eid=3582
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 3.2.3
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> <request>::= <RP>
>                     <segment-computation> | <path-key-expansion>
> 
>        where:
>           <segment-computation> ::= <END-POINTS>
>                                     [<LSPA>]
>                                     [<BANDWIDTH>]
>                                     [<BANDWIDTH>]
>                                     [<metric-list>]
>                                     [<RRO>]
>                                     [<IRO>]
>                                     [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
>           <path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY>
> 
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> <request>::= <RP>
>                     <segment-computation> | <path-key-expansion>
> 
>        where:
>           <segment-computation> ::= <END-POINTS>
>                                     [<LSPA>]
>                                     [<BANDWIDTH>]
>                                     [<metric-list>]
>                                     [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
>                                     [<IRO>]
>                                     [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
>           <path-key-expansion> ::= <PATH-KEY>
> 
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> This document defines <path-key-expansion> to allow path request message to
> be used for getting the confidential path segment. The <segment-computation>
> should be as per RFC5440 itself.
> There is a mistake in the second BANDWIDTH object which should be placed with
> RRO as per RFC5440.
> 
> 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.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5520 (draft-ietf-pce-path-key-05)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
> Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism
> Publication Date    : April 2009
> Author(s)           : R. Bradford, Ed., JP. Vasseur, A. Farrel
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Path Computation Element
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG