Hi Mrinmoy, We have updated the draft[1] to address your comments, please review it to see if it is ok for you ☺
Thank you for your comments! Thanks, Cheng [1]. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15 From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mrinmoy Das Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 6:56 PM To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding SID and NAI validation of SRv6-ERO 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 <dhruv.i...@gmail.com<mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>> 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 <mrinmoy.i...@gmail.com<mailto:mrinmoy.i...@gmail.com>> 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 Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
