The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8231, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5492 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Upendra Singh <[email protected]> Section: 6.1 Original Text ------------- Under section 6.1, PCRpt message is defined. In definition of path, Where: <path>::= <intended-path> [<actual-attribute-list><actual-path>] <intended-attribute-list> And in the same section in 4th last paragraph: "Note that the intended-attribute-list is optional and thus may be omitted. In this case, the PCE MAY use the values in the actual-attribute-list as the requested parameters for the path." Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- The definition of <path> defines that <actual-attribute-list> is optional, whereas down in paragraph it says <intended-attribute-list> is optional. This creates the conflict between PCRpt message format and the text description of the message. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8231 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21) -------------------------------------- Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Publication Date : September 2017 Author(s) : E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Path Computation Element Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
