Hi Vishwas. Good catch, but that seems even more complicated...
Indeed, section 7.9 in RFC 5440 is named "Reported Route Object" while the text in that section mentions a "Route Record Object" (3rd variation). However, RRO is defined in RFC 3209 as: "Record Route Object", which leave us with not less than 4 expansion options! As it is purely an expansion issue, the solutions are not too complex: - RRO should be read as in RFC 3209: "Record Route Object"; - the title of section 7.9 in RFC 5440 does not (explicitly) claim to expand the acronym and could be considered as a functional description of the use in that context (indeed, the RRO reports a route ;-) ); RFC errata might be an option (not sure it's deserved provided we pay attention in next documents); - the text of section 7.9 in RFC 5440 does not claim to but implicitly expands the acronym, however it is a simple swap of R-terms (which you can even find in RFC 3209); - the IANA is not the standard reference for acronym expansion, however, if you feel that "Recorded" should be updated to "Record" I could contact them about that. I hope this clarifies. Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vishwas Manral Hi, While readint the RFC5440 and the http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xml IANA assignments I noticed a discripancy. RRO in the RFC refers to a Reported Route Object but in the IANA it is refered to a Recorded Route Object. Thanks, Vishwas _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
