Subject: Re: [Pce] RFC5440

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:04:59 +0200

Hi Vishwas.

Good catch, but that seems even more complicated...

Indeed, section 7.9 in RFC 5440 is named "Reported Route Object" while
the text in that section mentions a "Route Record Object" (3rd
variation). However, RRO is defined in RFC 3209 as: "Record Route
Object", which leave us with not less than 4 expansion options!

As it is purely an expansion issue, the solutions are not too complex:
- RRO should be read as in RFC 3209: "Record Route Object";
- the title of section 7.9 in RFC 5440 does not (explicitly) claim to
expand the acronym and could be considered as a functional description
of the use in that context (indeed, the RRO reports a route ;-) ); RFC
errata might be an option (not sure it's deserved provided we pay
attention in next documents);
- the text of section 7.9 in RFC 5440 does not claim to but implicitly
expands the acronym, however it is a simple swap of R-terms (which you
can even find in RFC 3209);
- the IANA is not the standard reference for acronym expansion, however,
if you feel that "Recorded" should be updated to "Record" I could
contact them about that.

I hope this clarifies.

Regards,

Julien

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Vishwas Manral

Hi,

While readint the RFC5440 and the
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xml IANA assignments I
noticed a discripancy.

RRO in the RFC refers to a Reported Route Object but in the IANA it is
refered to a Recorded Route Object.

Thanks,
Vishwas
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:56:50 -0700

Hi Julien,

So what do you suggest we do to correct this?

Thanks,
Vishwas