[Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6006 (4867)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 16 November 2016 05:37 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 2085D129645 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9mkT-DNUBvhv for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:45 -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 E3BD01293EE for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C9072B80FA6; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:45 -0800 (PST)
To: qzhao@huawei.com, daniel@olddog.co.uk, fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com, takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, zali@cisco.com, julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, jpv@cisco.com, julien.meuric@orange.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20161116053745.C9072B80FA6@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/vJXdCxNa8Xc9UvOzsMlSQ6c4YV8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:36:49 -0800
Cc: pce@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6006 (4867)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:37:47 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6006,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6006&eid=4867

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: DHRUV DHODY <DHRUV.IETF@GMAIL.COM>;

Section: 3.4

Original Text
-------------
           <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                                 <request>
        where:
                <request>::= <RP>
                                <end-point-rro-pair-list>
                                [<OF>]
                                [<LSPA>]
                                [<BANDWIDTH>]
                                [<metric-list>]
                                [<IRO>]
                                [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

        where:

                <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
                                   <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
                                   [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]

                <RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
                <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

Corrected Text
--------------
           <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                              [<svec-list>]
                              <request-list>

           where:

                <svec-list>::=<SVEC>
                              [<OF>]
                              [<metric-list>]
                              [<svec-list>]

                <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]

                <request>::= <RP>
                             <end-point-rro-pair-list>
                             [<OF>]
                             [<LSPA>]
                             [<BANDWIDTH>]
                             [<metric-list>]
                             [<IRO>|<BNC>]
                             [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

           where:

                <end-point-rro-pair-list>::=
                                   <END-POINTS>[<RRO-List>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                                   [<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
                <RRO-List>::=(<RRO>|<SRRO>)[<RRO-List>]
                <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

Notes
-----
o Update the Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) [RFC5511] for Request
   message format: 

      * Update the request message to allows for the bundling of
      multiple path computation requests within a single Path
      Computation Request (PCReq) message.

      * Add <svec-list> in PCReq message. This object was  missed in
      [RFC6006].

      * Add BNC object in PCReq message. This object is required to
      support P2MP. It shares the same format as Include Route Object
      (IRO) but it is a different object. 
 
      * Update the <RRO-List> format to also allow Secondary Record
      Route object (SRRO). This object was  missed in [RFC6006].

      * Removed the BANDWIDTH Object followed by Record Route Object
      (RRO) from <RRO-List>. As BANDWIDTH object doesn't need to follow
      for each RRO in the <RRO-List>, there already exist BANDWIDTH
      object follow <RRO-List> and is backward compatible with
      [RFC5440].

      * Update the <end-point-rro-pair-list> to allow optional BANDWIDTH
      object only if <RRO-List> is included. 

Refer https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palleti-pce-rfc6006bis/?include_text=1

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6006 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Publication Date    : September 2010
Author(s)           : Q. Zhao, Ed., D. King, Ed., F. Verhaeghe, T. Takeda, Z. Ali, J. Meuric
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Path Computation Element
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG