Subject: [Pce] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8664 (6753)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:51:43 -0800 (PST)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8664,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6753

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Shuping Peng <[email-masked]>

Section: 4.3.1

Original Text
-------------
If the F bit is set to zero
      (see below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored
      by the receiver. 

Corrected Text
--------------
If the F bit is set to one
      (see below), then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored
      by the receiver. 

Notes
-----
Later it says, when this F bit is set to 1, the NAI value is absent, so the NT field has no meaning. 
     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;
           otherwise, it MUST be set to zero.  The S and F bits MUST NOT
           both be set to 1.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8664 (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing
Publication Date    : December 2019
Author(s)           : S. Sivabalan, C. Filsfils, J. Tantsura, W. Henderickx, J. Hardwick
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Path Computation Element
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 21:42:43 +0530

Hi John, WG,

The errata report is correct. This looks like a mistake/typo that got
introduced during the IESG review. This has been confirmed with Jon who was
the editor of the document. Thus the chairs recommend that the errata
should be accepted/verified.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien