Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
RFC 7570
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
Some suggested changes: - Section 2 : s/The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be carried/The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is carried/ - Section 3.1 : s/The RRO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be carried/The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is carried/ - Each requested IANA action should use a unique identifier (e.g., TBA-1, TBA-2) rather than a generic TBA. That simplifies IANA's job.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
Similar to Brian's comment: 2.2: s/One or more TLVs MAY be present in each object/Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs s/The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] MAY be carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject/The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] are carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. 3.2.2/3.2.3: s/MAY/can
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I'll leave this as a comment. If it's important, a RTG AD can say so ... In this text: If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized subobject. The behavior is a bit different from what I thought was the corresponding text in [RFC3209]: It is anticipated that new subobjects may be defined over time. A node which encounters an unrecognized subobject during its normal ERO processing sends a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender. The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is included, truncated (on the left) to the offending subobject. The presence of an unrecognized subobject which ^ I'm not seeing ^ this part reproduced in the draft is not encountered in a node's ERO processing SHOULD be ignored. It is passed forward along with the rest of the remaining ERO stack. I'm no RSVP-TE jockey, but I would have thought if you behaved as in [RFC3209], you would have done everything in that paragraph ... and obviously, I only compared these because the description was imported by reference AND sort-of-by value at the same time. Maybe providing only the reference, as you do in the next couple of instances would be better?
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection