Thanks Dhruv for the confirmation. Waiting for the new error value to be published.
Thanks & Regards, Mrinmoy On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 9:45 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mrinmoy, > > I think the error for SRv6-ERO should be added, especially since we have a > similar error check in RFC8664 as well. I request authors to recheck for > other error codes as well. > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:24 PM Mrinmoy Das <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello team, >> >> I was looking into latest PCEP SRv6 IETF draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/ >> >> I found that below error has been defined for SRv6-RRO in case both SID >> and NAI are absent: >> >> 5.3. RRO Processing >> >> >> If a PCEP speaker receives an SRv6-RRO subobject in which both SRv6 >> SID and NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO invalid and >> send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid >> object") and Error-Value = 35 (early allocated by IANA) ("Both SID >> and NAI are absent in SRv6-RRO subobject"). >> >> >> But a similar error is not mentioned for SRv6-ERO. Is there any specific >> reason for that or is it just a mistake? SR-ERO and SR-RRO have different >> error values for both SID and NAI being absent. >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> 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
