Diff: rfc9862v3.txt - rfc9862.txt

	rfc9862v3.txt	rfc9862.txt

	skipping to change at line 524 ¶	skipping to change at line 524 ¶
	Figure 3: SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV Format	Figure 3: SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV Format

	Type: 57 for the SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV.	Type: 57 for the SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV.

	Length: 28.	Length: 28.

	Protocol-Origin: 8-bit unsigned integer value that encodes the	Protocol-Origin: 8-bit unsigned integer value that encodes the
	Protocol-Origin. The values of this field are specified in the	Protocol-Origin. The values of this field are specified in the
	IANA registry "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under the "Segment	IANA registry "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under the "Segment
	Routing" registry group, which is introduced in Section 8.4 of	Routing" registry group, which is introduced in Section 8.4 of

	[ADV-SR-POLICY]. Note that in the PCInitiate message [RFC8281],	[RFC9857]. Note that in the PCInitiate message [RFC8281], the
	the Protocol-Origin is always set to 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when	Protocol-Origin is always set to 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when BGP-
	BGP-LS Producer is PCE)". The "SR Policy Protocol Origin" IANA	LS Producer is PCE)". The "SR Policy Protocol Origin" IANA
	registry includes a combination of values intended for use in PCEP	registry includes a combination of values intended for use in PCEP
	and BGP-LS. When the registry contains two variants of values	and BGP-LS. When the registry contains two variants of values
	associated with the mechanism or protocol used for provisioning of	associated with the mechanism or protocol used for provisioning of
	the Candidate Path, for example 1 - "PCEP" and 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP	the Candidate Path, for example 1 - "PCEP" and 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP
	or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)", the "(In PCEP or when BGP-LS	or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)", the "(In PCEP or when BGP-LS
	Producer is PCE)", then variants MUST be used in PCEP.	Producer is PCE)", then variants MUST be used in PCEP.

	Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be	Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
	ignored on receipt.	ignored on receipt.


	skipping to change at line 968 ¶	skipping to change at line 968 ¶
	\| 10 \| Reception of an \| \| [RFC5440] \|	\| 10 \| Reception of an \| \| [RFC5440] \|
	\| \| invalid object \| \| \|	\| \| invalid object \| \| \|
	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+
	\| \| \| 44: Missing SRPOLICY- \| RFC 9862 \|	\| \| \| 44: Missing SRPOLICY- \| RFC 9862 \|
	\| \| \| CAPABILITY TLV \| \|	\| \| \| CAPABILITY TLV \| \|
	+------------+-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+	+------------+-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+
	\| 26 \| Association \| \| [RFC8697] \|	\| 26 \| Association \| \| [RFC8697] \|
	\| \| Error \| \| \|	\| \| Error \| \| \|
	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+
	\| \| \| 20: SR Policy \| RFC 9862 \|	\| \| \| 20: SR Policy \| RFC 9862 \|

	\| \| \| Identifers Mismatch \| \|	\| \| \| Identifiers Mismatch \| \|
	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+	\| +-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+
	\| \| \| 21: SR Policy \| RFC 9862 \|	\| \| \| 21: SR Policy \| RFC 9862 \|
	\| \| \| Candidate Path \| \|	\| \| \| Candidate Path \| \|
	\| \| \| Identifier Mismatch \| \|	\| \| \| Identifier Mismatch \| \|
	+------------+-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+	+------------+-----------------+-----------------------+-----------+

	Table 3	Table 3

	6.4. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field	6.4. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field


	skipping to change at line 1236 ¶	skipping to change at line 1236 ¶
	2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.	2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.

	[RFC9603] Li, C., Ed., Kaladharan, P., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,	[RFC9603] Li, C., Ed., Kaladharan, P., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
	and Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element Communication	and Y. Zhu, "Path Computation Element Communication
	Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing",	Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing",
	RFC 9603, DOI 10.17487/RFC9603, July 2024,	RFC 9603, DOI 10.17487/RFC9603, July 2024,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9603>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9603>.

	9.2. Informative References	9.2. Informative References


	[ADV-SR-POLICY]
	Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Dong, J., Gredler, H.,
	and J. Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing
	Policies using BGP Link-State", Work in Progress,
	Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17, 6
	March 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
	ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17>.

	[PCEP-MULTIPATH]	[PCEP-MULTIPATH]
	Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,	Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,
	Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., Peng, S., Mishra, G. S., and S.	Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., Peng, S., Mishra, G. S., and S.
	Sidor, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol	Sidor, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
	(PCEP) Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information",	(PCEP) Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-
	multipath-16, 17 October 2025,	multipath-16, 17 October 2025,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
	multipath-16>.	multipath-16>.


	skipping to change at line 1288 ¶	skipping to change at line 1280 ¶
	[RFC9604] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,	[RFC9604] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
	and C. Li, Ed., "Carrying Binding Label/SID in PCE-Based	and C. Li, Ed., "Carrying Binding Label/SID in PCE-Based
	Networks", RFC 9604, DOI 10.17487/RFC9604, August 2024,	Networks", RFC 9604, DOI 10.17487/RFC9604, August 2024,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9604>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9604>.

	[RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,	[RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
	P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in	P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
	BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, September 2025,	BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, September 2025,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>.


		[RFC9857] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Dong, J., Gredler, H.,
		and J. Tantsura, "Advertisement of Segment Routing
		Policies Using BGP - Link State", RFC 9857, October 2025,
		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9857>.

	Acknowledgements	Acknowledgements

	We would like to thank Abdul Rehman, Andrew Stone, Boris Khasanov,	We would like to thank Abdul Rehman, Andrew Stone, Boris Khasanov,
	Cheng Li, Dhruv Dhody, Gorry Fairhurst, Gyan Mishra, Huaimo Chen,	Cheng Li, Dhruv Dhody, Gorry Fairhurst, Gyan Mishra, Huaimo Chen,
	Ines Robles, Joseph Salowey, Ketan Talaulikar, Marina Fizgeer, Mike	Ines Robles, Joseph Salowey, Ketan Talaulikar, Marina Fizgeer, Mike
	Bishopm, Praveen Kumar, Robert Sparks, Roman Danyliw, Stephane	Bishopm, Praveen Kumar, Robert Sparks, Roman Danyliw, Stephane
	Litkowski, Tom Petch, Zoey Rose, Xiao Min, and Xiong Quan for their	Litkowski, Tom Petch, Zoey Rose, Xiao Min, and Xiong Quan for their
	reviews and suggestions.	reviews and suggestions.

	Contributors	Contributors

End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	12 lines changed or deleted	9 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.