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

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

Hi AB,

You're right that this is another typo in the same section.

It is generally best to raise individual issues in separate reports because that
way it is easier to process them.

Would you like to raise the Errata Report for this, or shall I handle it?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 07 April 2013 16:20
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5520 (3582)
> 
> My small objection is just that the errata did not add the full PCReq
> message paragraph in the errata (it contains another editorial issue),
> as the missing part can add to read the below (similar to RFC5440);
> ++++++++++++++
> The format of a PCReq message is as follows:
> 
>    <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
>                       [<svec-list>]
>                       <request-list>
> 
>    where:
> 
>       <svec-list>::=<SVEC>[<svec-list>]
>       <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
> ++++++++++++++
> 
> The RFC5520 had mentioned the above as differently from RFC5440 as;
> +++++++++++++++++
> The format of a PCReq message is as follows:
> 
>    <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
>                       [<SVEC-list>]
>                       <request-list>
> 
>    where:
> 
>       <svec-list>::=<SVEC>[<svec-list>]
>       <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
> ++++++++++++++++++
> I think there may be difference between <SVEC-list> and <svec-list>
> However, I don't object if the authors ignored that,
> 
> Regards
> AB
> 
> *This message was a reply to the below request*
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> On 4/7/13, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> >