Hi Les, Thanks for the speedy reply, and I take your point. I do still think an erratum is called for, but I think it's editorial or "hold for document update", not technical. Now that you've applied the clue bat I think I can compose one. I'll do so by and by and you can see what you think.
--John > On Dec 6, 2023, at 4:25 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > John - > > The meaningful bits of the SID and the size (number of octets) depend upon > the flags. As Section 2.1.1.1 states (emphasis added): > > The following settings for V-Flag and L-Flag are valid: > > The V-Flag and L-Flag are set to 0: > The SID/Index/Label field is a 4-octet index defining the offset in the > SID/Label space advertised by this router using the encodings defined in > Section 3.1. > > The V-Flag and L-Flag are set to 1: > The SID/Index/Label field is a 3-octet local label where the 20 rightmost > bits are used for encoding the label value. > > Do you still believe some change/clarification is needed? > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 1:13 PM > > To: stefano.prev...@gmail.com; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>; > > abashandy.i...@gmail.com; han...@rtbrick.com; DECRAENE Bruno > > INNOV/NET <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; Jeff > > Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > > <ppse...@cisco.com>; Horneffer, Martin <martin.hornef...@telekom.de>; > > wim.henderi...@nokia.com; edc.i...@gmail.com; ro...@google.com; > > milojevici...@gmail.com; s...@ytti.fi > > Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > > Subject: Bug in RFC 8667 definition of SID/Index/Label > > > > 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 Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
