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 <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 1:13 PM
> To: [email protected]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[email protected]>; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; DECRAENE Bruno
> INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jeff
> Tantsura <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> <[email protected]>; Horneffer, Martin <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: lsr <[email protected]>
> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
