Hi Jeff, et al, Speaking as a WG member:
I agree there should be an Errata here but the interpretation taken by at least one implementation is to update the length to 5 rather than remove the RESERVED octet. I'd like to hear what other implementations have done. Thanks, Acee On 3/22/18, 6:49 AM, "Lsr on behalf of RFC Errata System" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7810, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5293 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Section: 4.5-4.7 Original Text ------------- 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Residual Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Type: 37 Length: 4 RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use Corrected Text -------------- 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Residual Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Type: 37 Length: 4 Notes ----- In sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, a RESERVED field is in the diagram and the text. However, the length field of each of these TLVs is 4. The RESERVED field is thus not present and should be removed in future editions of this document. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC7810 (draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-11) -------------------------------------- Title : IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Publication Date : May 2016 Author(s) : S. Previdi, Ed., S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, Q. Wu Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IS-IS for IP Internets Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
