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://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects

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:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: 01 March 2017 10:30
> To: jpv@cisco.com; jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com; akatlas@gmail.com;
> db3546@att.com; aretana@cisco.com; jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com;
> jpv@cisco.com; julien.meuric@orange.com
> Cc: pce@ietf.org; text/plain@rfc-editor.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.orgContent-
> Type; afarrel@juniper.net; charset=UTF-8@rfc-editor.org
> 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:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5440&eid=4956
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>
> 
> 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
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce