The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8231, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6627 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios <[email protected]> Date Reported: 2021-07-01 Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG) Section: 6.4 Original Text ------------- <request>::= <RP> <END-POINTS> [<LSP>] [<LSPA>] [<BANDWIDTH>] [<metric-list>] [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]] [<IRO>] [<LOAD-BALANCING>] Corrected Text -------------- <request>::= <RP> <END-POINTS> [<LSP>] [<CLASSTYPE>] [<LSPA>] [<BANDWIDTH>] [<metric-list>] [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]] [<IRO>] [<LOAD-BALANCING>] Notes ----- RFC 5455 defines the CLASSTYPE object and specifies that the CLASSTYPE object MUST be inserted after the END-POINT objects. RFC 8231 defines the LSP object and specifies that the LSP object MUST be inserted after the END-POINTS object. Hence, it is not clear if CLASSTYPE or LSP goes after END-POINTS. Hence, to disambiguate and avoid interoperability issues, the proposal is to include the CLASSTYPE object in the updated grammar. The order would be <END-POINTS>[<LSP>][<CLASSTYPE>] --VERIFIER NOTES-- See also the mail thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/UmqIZSDtRqe7yC5v0wHU64mrGuI/ for more discussion and detail. In https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/VUM5GymISrBiPgoUEVH8IkaM3tU/, the AD at the time (Adrian) rejected erratum 3672, which is similar to this one in that it complains about ambiguous ordering and asks for a fix. Adrian ends his rejection comment with “In rejecting this Errata report I note that the reported error is not a typo, but a deliberate decision of the authors and working group. The fix, therefore, if it is to be applied needs to be achieved through a consensus document.” AFAICT this reasoning applies equally in the current case. Actually, it applies even more so, because the WG was offered draft-cmfg-pce-pcep-grammar-02 and didn’t do anything with it, which implies no consensus was demonstrated to go forward with a solution to the identified problem. Therefore, I'm also rejecting this erratum. The right way forward is for the WG to take on this problem. -------------------------------------- RFC8231 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21) -------------------------------------- Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Publication Date : September 2017 Author(s) : E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Path Computation Element Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
