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

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 06 October 2020 10:36 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 9FDEB3A13A0 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 03:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 WwEfMMUHZVz0 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 03:36:56 -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 F3E973A13B3 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 03:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5A549F40718; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 03:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: edward.crabbe@gmail.com, inaminei@google.com, msiva@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, dd@dhruvdhody.com, julien.meuric@orange.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ssidor@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20201006103645.5A549F40718@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 03:36:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/aUn17sUHTjj4_VE0VbyeB5N-00E>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 03:39:32 -0700
Subject: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8281 (6301)
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 10:36:58 -0000

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