Hi Julien, So what do you suggest we do to correct this?
Thanks, Vishwas On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:04 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
