Ambiguity in the RSVP_HOP object usage defined in rfc3473 (GMPLS extensions for RSVP-TE)

[Michael Mandelberg <mmandelberg@lopsys.com>]

From Section 8.1 I get: 
The choice of the data interface to use is always made by the sender
of the Path message. The choice of the data interface is indicated by
the sender of the Path message by including the data channel's
interface identifier in the message using a new RSVP_HOP object sub-
type. For bidirectional LSPs, the sender chooses the data interface
in each direction. In all cases but bundling, the upstream interface
is implied by the downstream interface. For bundling, the path
sender explicitly identifies the component interface used in each
direction. The new RSVP_HOP object is used in Resv message to
indicate the downstream node's usage of the indicated interface(s).
Suppose that LSR A sends a PATH message to LSR B, and later LSR B sends a
RESERVE message to LSR A. From all this I gather that:
1) in the PATH message LSR A puts the 32-bit interface identifier(s) into
the RSVP_HOP object.
2) These identifiers are those configured on the LSR A. In other words, when
LSR B processes the PATH message, it will have to look up the mapping to
determine its local identifiers for these interfaces.
3) The last sentence in the quoted paragraph susggests that the RSVP_HOP
object in the RESERVE message should reference the interfaces using
identifiers configured on LSR B, so that when LSR A receives the RESERVE
message, it will have to look up the mapping to determine its local
identifiers for these interfaces.
Now, from Section 8.1.2:
A node receiving one or more TLVs in a Path message saves their
values and returns them in the HOP objects of subsequent Resv
messages sent to the node that originated the TLVs.
This paragraph implies the opposite of point 3) above. It says that the
RSVP_HOP object in the RESERVE message sent by LSR B should contain the
*same* values as those it received.
There is a clear ambiguity, and a suggested contradiction here. What is the
intent, and what is the proper resolution?
Thanks
Michael Mandelberg 

Lambda Optical Systems