RFC 4872, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", May 2007Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 934
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2010-10-30
Section 17 says:
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by this document. Unmodified RSVP message formats are not listed.
It should say:
This section presents the RSVP-TE message-related formats as modified by this document. Unmodified RSVP-TE message formats are not listed.
The first paragraph of Section 17 does not confine the scope of the
specification as it would be appropriate.
'Classic' RSVP (RFC 2205) is neither covered nor affected by the subsequently specified message formats.
Compare with Erratum 945.
Same reason for rejection...
Although it is true that there is some common distinction between "classic" RSVP and RSVP-TE, the IP protocol number is the same, and the message numbers (and registry) are the same. In essence, there is just one protocol with two uses.