[Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8231 (5970)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 31 January 2020 10:06 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 6212A1200D6 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 0gX2F6naW9z0 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:06:24 -0800 (PST)
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 10D8B120026 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 67FCFF406F7; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:06:16 -0800 (PST)
To: edward.crabbe@oracle.com, inaminei@google.com, jmedved@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, julien.meuric@orange.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: sburnwal@juniper.net, pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200131100616.67FCFF406F7@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:06:16 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/o6ZkKC9gXtFIVt6iD_ZrQFcwEhE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:07:55 -0800
Subject: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8231 (5970)
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: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:06:25 -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/eid5970

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Subham Burnwal <sburnwal@juniper.net>

Section: 8.5

Original Text
-------------
19       Invalid Operation

                Error-value
                1:   Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated
                     LSP.  The PCEP-ERROR object is followed by the LSP
                     object that identifies the LSP.

Corrected Text
--------------
19       Invalid Operation

                Error-value
                1:   Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated
                     LSP.

   OR


19       Invalid Operation

                Error-value
                1:   Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated
                     LSP.  The PCEP-ERROR object is followed by the SRP object.

Notes
-----
By referring RFC 8231 Section 6.3. The PCErr Message:
    LSP Object is not part of PCErr message so for Error Type:19, Error value:1 string need to be changed to either of the following.

"Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP."
 OR
"Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP.  The PCEP-ERROR object is followed by the SRP object."

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