Re: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8281 (6301)

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Tue, 06 October 2020 13:47 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201006103645.5A549F40718@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20201006103645.5A549F40718@rfc-editor.org>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 19:16:49 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5Zk+vyxkmRQQCG8O7C-PkxnACWeNAjePkLVahsoFTCfCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/GTpr3CWY5YZBf41YxUtCaUwuHMI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8281 (6301)
Precedence: list

Hi WG,

Julien & I believe that the errata is correct and should be accepted,
as it aligns the RBNF with the text in the RFC. We will wait for a few
days before asking the AD to mark it as verified.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:06 PM RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8281,
> "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6301
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Samuel Sidor <ssidor@cisco.com>
>
> Section: 5.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
>                                       <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
>                                            <LSP>
>                                            [<END-POINTS>]
>                                            <ERO>
>                                            [<attribute-list>]
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
>                                       <LSP>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
>                                       <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion-or-reclamation>)
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
>                                            <LSP>
>                                            [<END-POINTS>]
>                                            <ERO>
>                                            [<attribute-list>]
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion-or-reclamation> ::= <SRP>
>                                                      <LSP>
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> Update needed to solve ambiguity for any extra object included after SRP and LSP objects in reclaim delegation request, which is coming from:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8281#section-6
> A PCE (either the original or one of its backups) sends a PCInitiate
>    message that includes just the SRP and LSP objects and carries the
>    PLSP-ID of the LSP it wants to take control of.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8281 (draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
> Publication Date    : December 2017
> Author(s)           : E. Crabbe, I. Minei, S. Sivabalan, R. Varga
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Path Computation Element
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

Re: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8281 (63… Dhruv Dhody
[Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8281 (6301) RFC Errata System