Re: [Pce] RFC5440

[Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf at gmail.com>]

Hi Julien,

So what do you suggest we do to correct this?

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:04 AM,  <julien.meuric at orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> 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: pce-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] 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
> Pce at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>