[Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8231 (6627)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 01 July 2021 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0853A2023 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1i4xAxY5XhB6 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A2B3A2021 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2EEDEF4071F; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: edward.crabbe@oracle.com, inaminei@google.com, jmedved@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, dd@dhruvdhody.com, julien.meuric@orange.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com, pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210701093814.2EEDEF4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 02:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XflJw0qNYrcU0kS5UrS9EpDLgsA>
Subject: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8231 (6627)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 09:38:38 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8231,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6627

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios <oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>

Section: 6.4

Original Text
-------------
  <request>::= <RP>
                      <END-POINTS>
                      [<LSP>]
                      [<LSPA>]
                      [<BANDWIDTH>]
                      [<metric-list>]
                      [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                      [<IRO>]
                      [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

Corrected Text
--------------
  <request>::= <RP>
                      <END-POINTS>
                      [<LSP>]
                      [<CLASSTYPE>]
                      [<LSPA>]
                      [<BANDWIDTH>]
                      [<metric-list>]
                      [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                      [<IRO>]
                      [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

Notes
-----
RFC 5455 defines the CLASSTYPE object and specifies that the CLASSTYPE object MUST
   be inserted after the END-POINT objects. RFC 8231 defines the LSP object and specifies that  the LSP object MUST be inserted after the END-POINTS object. Hence, it is not clear if CLASSTYPE or LSP goes after END-POINTS. Hence, to disambiguate and avoid interoperability issues, the proposal is to include the CLASSTYPE object in the updated grammar. The order would be <END-POINTS>[<LSP>][<CLASSTYPE>]

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8231 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE
Publication Date    : September 2017
Author(s)           : E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Path Computation Element
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG