errata logo graphic

Found 1 record.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC5150, "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)", February 2008

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 1345

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-03
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2009-08-24

Section 5.1.1,p.8 says:

   If an egress node receiving a Path message with the "LSP stitching
|  desired" bit set in the Flags field of received LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
                                      ^^^^
|  recognizes the object, the TLV TLV, and the bit and also supports the
                              ^^^^^^^
   desired stitching behavior, then it MUST allocate a non-NULL label
   for that S-LSP in the corresponding Resv message.  Also, so that the
   head-end node can ensure that the correct label (forwarding) actions
   will be carried out by the egress node and that the S-LSP can be used
   for stitching, the egress node MUST set the "LSP segment stitching
   ready" bit defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute subobject.

It should say:

   If an egress node receiving a Path message with the "LSP stitching
|  desired" bit set in the Flags field of the Attributes Flags TLV of
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|  the received LSP_ATTRIBUTES object recognizes the object, the TLV,
   ^^^^                                                          ^^^
   and the bit and also supports the desired stitching behavior, then it
   MUST allocate a non-NULL label for that S-LSP in the corresponding
   Resv message.  Also, so that the head-end node can ensure that the
   correct label (forwarding) actions will be carried out by the egress
   node and that the S-LSP can be used for stitching, the egress node
   MUST set the "LSP segment stitching ready" bit defined in the Flags
   field of the RRO Attribute subobject.

Notes:

Location is 6th paragraph of Section 5.1.1 (i.e., 3rd paragraph on page 8).

Rationale:
a) apparently significant text dropped
b) spurious word replication


Report New Errata