RFC 8231, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", September 2017

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8786, RFC 9353

Errata ID: 6627
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Date Reported: 2021-07-01
Rejected by: John Scudder
Date Rejected: 2021-10-06

Section 6.4 says:

  <request>::= <RP>
                      <END-POINTS>
                      [<LSP>]
                      [<LSPA>]
                      [<BANDWIDTH>]
                      [<metric-list>]
                      [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                      [<IRO>]
                      [<LOAD-BALANCING>]

It should say:

  <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.

Report New Errata