Hi,

Just to clarify the suggestion to have complete RBNF grammar at a living
document was just for informational purposes (and not to bypass the IETF
process). It stemmed from trying a different approach than the one already
attempted in the past.

I am all for trying the approach suggested by John and Robert.

<snip>
>
> Exactly. The crux of the issue is that RFC5440 prescribes a rigid
> protocol structure, which does not lend itself to extensible data modeling.
>
> > This implies to me that there’s at least one other possible way forward,
> > which would be to update RFC5440, making object ordering optional.
> > Something like this:
> >
> > OLD:
> > An implementation MUST form the PCEP
> >     messages using the object ordering specified in this document.
> >
> > NEW:
> > An implementation SHOULD form the PCEP
> >     messages using the object ordering specified in this and subsequent
> > documents when an ordering can be unambiguously determined; an
> > implementation MUST be prepared to receive a PCEP
> > message with objects in any order.
> >
> > In other words, fix the problem by fiat, retroactively declaring it to
> > be a non-problem. Let me be the first to say that this proposal might be
> > technically unsound for some reason, but since it was mentioned in the
> > earlier email and represents a different way forward, I thought I’d
> > include it here.
>
> Exactly. The WG needs to make decision as to how to clean the house.
> There are two options, both of which you have referenced:
>
> - publish a standards track document which will tie together all current
> documents, updating them as needed to resolve conflicts like the one in
> this erratum
>
> - publish a 5440bis with saner object ordering, a compatibility section
> and all that jazz
>
>
[Dhruv]: Or an independent document that only focuses on PCEP object
ordering and updates RFC 5440 (and any other document that uses "MUST" for
object ordering).

Thanks!
Dhruv
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to