Hi Mrinmoy,

You are correct. There was a recent errata on RFC 8664 regarding this issue
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6753

The authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 should also fix this
issue in their draft. Thanks for noticing it.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:01 PM Mrinmoy Das <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> I have a doubt regarding below section of the above draft:
>
> 4.3.1 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11#section-4.3.1>.
>   SRv6-ERO Subobject
>
>
> NAI Type (NT): Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
>    the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero (see
>    below) then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored by the
>    receiver.  This document reuses NT types defined in [RFC8664 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664>]:
>
> It seems above highlighted line indicates that if F bit is set to 0 then
> NT field MUST be ignored
>
> by the receiver, whereas it should be completely opposite as per below 
> definition of F bit
>
> from the same draft:
>
>
>   F: When this bit is set to 1, the NAI value in the subobject body
>       is absent.  The F bit MUST be set to 1 if NT=0, and otherwise MUST
>       be set to zero.  The S and F bits MUST NOT both be set to 1.
>
>
> So, I think the above highlighted line needs correction. As NT type refers
> to RFC8664, I found
>
> the same mistakes over there as well.
>
> 4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664#section-4.3.1>.  SR-ERO 
> Subobject
>
> NAI Type (NT):  Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
>       the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero
>       (see below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored
>       by the receiver.  This document describes the following NT values:
>
> Please let me know if you think differently.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mrinmoy
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to