Hi Mrinmoy, I think the error for SRv6-ERO should be added, especially since we have a similar error check in RFC8664 as well. I request authors to recheck for other error codes as well.
Thanks! Dhruv On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 4:24 PM Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello team, > > I was looking into latest PCEP SRv6 IETF draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/ > > I found that below error has been defined for SRv6-RRO in case both SID > and NAI are absent: > > 5.3. RRO Processing > > > If a PCEP speaker receives an SRv6-RRO subobject in which both SRv6 > SID and NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO invalid and > send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid > object") and Error-Value = 35 (early allocated by IANA) ("Both SID > and NAI are absent in SRv6-RRO subobject"). > > > But a similar error is not mentioned for SRv6-ERO. Is there any specific > reason for that or is it just a mistake? SR-ERO and SR-RRO have different > error values for both SID and NAI being absent. > > Thanks & Regards, > Mrinmoy > _______________________________________________ > 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
