Hi Adrian, Much thanks for the catch. I've verified - hopefully this meets your criteria for SOON as I would not want to be an example in your draft:-)
Deborah > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:46 AM > To: pce@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Pce] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5440 (4956) > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_pcep_pcep.xhtml-23pcep- > 2Dobjects&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=NE2thC9Tljil9xWVP8oIBIXIM2nY4X5Vel0ElRI > B2zw&e= > > 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: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc- > 2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5440-26eid- > 3D4956&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=nD7-oTxeqDLDwDFIhk- > taL1kYPVOoqBVUEVETZwUdMk&e= > > > > -------------------------------------- > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pce&d=DQICAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=zTpEpsMI7ID2Y51iuu > MuyeVi5EQRlmaSiZu972Yo_5w&s=dNNwtvf5IuP6oBe28khBLWrQenNDCXUiFxT > BBnzEZo0&e= _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
