Re: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)

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

Thanks, very timely.

I think you need to pass this on to IANA and ask them to act.
Explicit communication needed because they don't follow Errata.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 02 March 2017 21:25
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Much thanks for the catch. I've verified - hopefully this meets your criteria
for
> SOON as I would not want to be an example in your draft:-)
> 
> Deborah
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:46 AM
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
> >
> > Looking at the IANA section for draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12.txt which
is
> > in flight with the IANA team, we discovered that the Object-Type value of 0
is
> > not mentioned in nearly every entry at
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_pcep_pcep.xhtml-23pcep-
> > 2Dobjects&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=NE2thC9Tljil9xWVP8oIBIXIM2nY4X5Vel0ElRI
> > B2zw&e=
> >
> > Looking back at RFC 5440 (and at some more recent RFCs) I think the
intention
> > was that an Object-Type of 0 should not be used (perhaps the first PCEP
> > implementation was written in Pascal?).
> >
> > Thus, this Errata Report proposes that IANA be instructed to mark ALL
> > Object-Type 0 entries as "Reserved".
> >
> > Largely speaking, this just fills in missing information, but it changes the
0
> > values for:
> >
> > LSP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
> > SRP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
> > VENDOR-INFORMATION RFC 7470 (0 is "Unassigned")
> > BU draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware (0 currently "Unassigned")
> >
> > It would also be wise to mark the unassigned Object Classes to read...
> > OLD
> > 36-255 Unassigned 1-15: Unassigned
> > NEW
> > 36-255 Unassigned 0: Reserved
> >                                         1-15: Unassigned
> >
> > Since two of these documents are in late-stage RFC Editor processing, I
suggest
> > the ADs would do well to act SOON.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> > > Sent: 01 March 2017 10:30
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; text/[e-mail]; rfc-editor@rfc-
> > editor.orgContent-
> > > Type; [e-mail]; charset=[e-mail]
> > > Subject: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
> > >
> > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5440,
> > > "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)".
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > You may review the report below and at:
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
> > 2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5440-26eid-
> > 3D4956&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=nD7-oTxeqDLDwDFIhk-
> > taL1kYPVOoqBVUEVETZwUdMk&e=
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Type: Editorial
> > > Reported by: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> > >
> > > Section: 9.3
> > >
> > > Original Text
> > > -------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Corrected Text
> > > --------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Notes
> > > -----
> > > This section does not tell IANA the range for the Object-Types to be
> > registered
> > > for each Object-Class, nor what to do with the values not assigned in this
> > > document.
> > >
> > > IANA has correctly recognised that the top value is 15, and that the
values
> > > between those shown here and 15 should be marked as "Unassigned."
> > >
> > > However, there is confusion over the value 0 for an Object-Type. The old
> > entries
> > > (arising from RFC 5440) do not mention 0. Newer entries for RFC 7470 and
> > several
> > > I-Ds in the pipe mark 0 as Unassigned.
> > >
> > > For consistency, ALL 0 Object-Types should be marked "Reserved".
> > >
> > > (This might need an Errata Report against some other RFCs if you are
> > particularly
> > > fussy, but I think we can do it all on this report.)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC5440 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-19)
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Title               : Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol
> > (PCEP)
> > > Publication Date    : March 2009
> > > Author(s)           : JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed.
> > > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > > Source              : Path Computation Element
> > > Area                : Routing
> > > Stream              : IETF
> > > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pce mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pce&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ-
> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu
> > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=dNNwtvf5IuP6oBe28khBLWrQenNDCXUiFxT
> > BBnzEZo0&e=