Hi WG,

Julien & I believe that the errata is correct and should be accepted,
as it aligns the RBNF with the text in the RFC. We will wait for a few
days before asking the AD to mark it as verified.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:06 PM RFC Errata System
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8281,
> "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for 
> PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6301
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Samuel Sidor <[email protected]>
>
> Section: 5.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
>                                       <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
>                                            <LSP>
>                                            [<END-POINTS>]
>                                            <ERO>
>                                            [<attribute-list>]
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
>                                       <LSP>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
>                                       
> <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion-or-reclamation>)
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
>                                            <LSP>
>                                            [<END-POINTS>]
>                                            <ERO>
>                                            [<attribute-list>]
>
>      <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion-or-reclamation> ::= <SRP>
>                                                      <LSP>
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> Update needed to solve ambiguity for any extra object included after SRP and 
> LSP objects in reclaim delegation request, which is coming from:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8281#section-6
> A PCE (either the original or one of its backups) sends a PCInitiate
>    message that includes just the SRP and LSP objects and carries the
>    PLSP-ID of the LSP it wants to take control of.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8281 (draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 
> Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
> Publication Date    : December 2017
> Author(s)           : E. Crabbe, I. Minei, S. Sivabalan, 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

Reply via email to