Looking at the IANA section for draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12.txt which is
in flight with the IANA team, we discovered that the Object-Type value of 0 is
not mentioned in nearly every entry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects
Looking back at RFC 5440 (and at some more recent RFCs) I think the intention
was that an Object-Type of 0 should not be used (perhaps the first PCEP
implementation was written in Pascal?).
Thus, this Errata Report proposes that IANA be instructed to mark ALL
Object-Type 0 entries as "Reserved".
Largely speaking, this just fills in missing information, but it changes the 0
values for:
LSP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
SRP draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce (0 currently "Unassigned")
VENDOR-INFORMATION RFC 7470 (0 is "Unassigned")
BU draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware (0 currently "Unassigned")
It would also be wise to mark the unassigned Object Classes to read...
OLD
36-255 Unassigned 1-15: Unassigned
NEW
36-255 Unassigned 0: Reserved
1-15: Unassigned
Since two of these documents are in late-stage RFC Editor processing, I suggest
the ADs would do well to act SOON.
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: 01 March 2017 10:30
> To: j...@cisco.com; jeanlouis.ler...@orange-ftgroup.com; akat...@gmail.com;
> db3...@att.com; aret...@cisco.com; jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com;
> j...@cisco.com; julien.meu...@orange.com
> Cc: pce@ietf.org; text/pl...@rfc-editor.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.orgContent-
> Type; afar...@juniper.net; charset=ut...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5440,
> "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5440&eid=4956
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Adrian Farrel <afar...@juniper.net>
>
> Section: 9.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> This section does not tell IANA the range for the Object-Types to be
registered
> for each Object-Class, nor what to do with the values not assigned in this
> document.
>
> IANA has correctly recognised that the top value is 15, and that the values
> between those shown here and 15 should be marked as "Unassigned."
>
> However, there is confusion over the value 0 for an Object-Type. The old
entries
> (arising from RFC 5440) do not mention 0. Newer entries for RFC 7470 and
several
> I-Ds in the pipe mark 0 as Unassigned.
>
> For consistency, ALL 0 Object-Types should be marked "Reserved".
>
> (This might need an Errata Report against some other RFCs if you are
particularly
> fussy, but I think we can do it all on this report.)
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5440 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-19)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)
> Publication Date : March 2009
> Author(s) : JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed.
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Path Computation Element
> Area : Routing
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
