Hi John, Section 2.1 defines also the bits to be used in the flags field:
where: [ ... ] V-Flag: Value Flag. If set, then the Prefix-SID carries a value (instead of an index). By default, the flag is UNSET. L-Flag: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by the Prefix-SID has local significance. By default, the flag is UNSET. [ ... ] When the Prefix-SID is an index (and the V-Flag is not set), the value is used to determine the actual label value inside the set of all advertised label ranges of a given router. This allows a receiving router to construct the forwarding state to a particular destination router. -- We have used similar textblocks for the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 SR extensions and I am not aware of any questions from implementators around ambiguity. IMO there is clear enough language to describe proper encoding of the prefix-SID subTLV and I am not sure why an "erratum" is required. /hannes On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:13:15PM +0000, John Scudder wrote: | Hi Authors and Contributors who "should be considered as coauthors”, | | Your RFC defines the SID/Index/Label field of the Prefix Segment Identifier (Prefix-SID) Sub-TLV, in Section 2.1, as: | | SID/Index/Label as defined in Section 2.1.1.1. | | But when I look at Section 2.1.1.1 I see that it defines "V-Flag and L-Flag”, not SID/Index/Label at all. It relates to the interpretation of SID/Index/Label, yes, but it doesn’t define the field. | | It seems as though an erratum is needed to provide a useful definition. I don’t have text to suggest. Can one of you suggest text, and either raise the erratum yourself, or if you send text, I can raise it? Alternatively, if you can help me understand how section 2.1.1.1 actually does define this field, I'm all ears. | | Thanks, | | --John | _______________________________________________ | Lsr mailing list | [email protected] | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
