Subject: [Pce] Clarification regarding draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11/RFC8664

From: Mrinmoy Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 16:01:20 +0530

Hello Team,

I have a doubt regarding below section of the above draft:

4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11#section-4.3.1>.
SRv6-ERO Subobject

NAI Type (NT): Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
   the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero (see
   below) then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.  This document reuses NT types defined in [RFC8664
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664>]:

It seems above highlighted line indicates that if F bit is set to 0 then NT
field MUST be ignored

by the receiver, whereas it should be completely opposite as per below
definition of F bit

from the same draft:

  F: When this bit is set to 1, the NAI value in the subobject body
      is absent.  The F bit MUST be set to 1 if NT=0, and otherwise MUST
      be set to zero.  The S and F bits MUST NOT both be set to 1.

So, I think the above highlighted line needs correction. As NT type refers
to RFC8664, I found

the same mistakes over there as well.

4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664#section-4.3.1>.
SR-ERO Subobject

NAI Type (NT):  Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in
      the object body, if any is present.  If the F bit is set to zero
      (see below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored
      by the receiver.  This document describes the following NT values:

Please let me know if you think differently.

Thanks,
Mrinmoy

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 16:07:54 +0530

Hi Mrinmoy,

You are correct. There was a recent errata on RFC 8664 regarding this issue
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6753

The authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 should also fix this
issue in their draft. Thanks for noticing it.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:01 PM Mrinmoy Das <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11#section-4.3.1>.  SRv6-ERO Subobject
>
>
>    receiver.  This document reuses NT types defined in [RFC8664 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664>]:
>
> It seems above highlighted line indicates that if F bit is set to 0 then
> NT field MUST be ignored
>
> by the receiver, whereas it should be completely opposite as per below definition of F bit
>
> from the same draft:
>
>
> 4.3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664#section-4.3.1>.  SR-ERO Subobject
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>