John -


The meaningful bits of the SID and the size (number of octets) depend upon the 
flags. As Section 2.1.1.1 states (emphasis added):



The following settings for V-Flag and L-Flag are valid:



The V-Flag and L-Flag are set to 0:

    The SID/Index/Label field is a 4-octet index defining the offset in the 
SID/Label space advertised by this router using the encodings defined in 
Section 3.1.



The V-Flag and L-Flag are set to 1:

    The SID/Index/Label field is a 3-octet local label where the 20 rightmost 
bits are used for encoding the label value.



Do you still believe some change/clarification is needed?



   Les



> -----Original Message-----

> From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>

> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 1:13 PM

> To: stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)

> <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>;

> abashandy.i...@gmail.com; han...@rtbrick.com; DECRAENE Bruno

> INNOV/NET <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; Jeff

> Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)

> <ppse...@cisco.com>; Horneffer, Martin <martin.hornef...@telekom.de>;

> wim.henderi...@nokia.com; edc.i...@gmail.com; ro...@google.com;

> milojevici...@gmail.com; s...@ytti.fi

> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>

> Subject: Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label

>

> Hi Authors and Contributors who "should be considered as coauthors”,

>

> Your RFC defines the SID/Index/Label field of the Prefix Segment Identifier

> (Prefix-SID) Sub-TLV, in Section 2.1, as:

>

>       SID/Index/Label as defined in Section 2.1.1.1.

>

> But when I look at Section 2.1.1.1 I see that it defines "V-Flag and L-Flag”, 
> not

> SID/Index/Label at all. It relates to the interpretation of SID/Index/Label, 
> yes,

> but it doesn’t define the field.

>

> It seems as though an erratum is needed to provide a useful definition. I 
> don’t

> have text to suggest. Can one of you suggest text, and either raise the 
> erratum

> yourself, or if you send text, I can raise it? Alternatively, if you can help 
> me

> understand how section 2.1.1.1 actually does define this field, I'm all ears.

>

> Thanks,

>

> --John
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to