RFC Errata
RFC 4606, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", August 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6344
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 2804
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-01
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2012-04-03
(2) typo In Section 3, at the bottom of page 11, the RFC says: [...]. The standard definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. [...] ^ It should say: [...]. The standard definition for virtual | concatenation allows each virtual concatenation component to travel over diverse paths. [...] or perhaps better: [...]. The standard definition for virtual | concatenation allows the virtual concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. [...] (4) inconsistency in examples Still within Section 3, in the lower half of page 15, under the headline: Examples of Labels there are multiple occurrances of an index shift that makes the text inconsistent with the tables on page 14 and the upper half of page 15. E.g., "Kth-1" for "K>0" would result in "0th, 1st, 2nd" where the appropriate table (at tho bottom of page 14) gives "1st, 2nd, 3rd" : K SDH VC-4 --------------- 0 other 1 1st TUG-3 2 2nd TUG-3 3 3rd TUG-3 Hence, a) vv | Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0. should be corrected to say: | Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth TUG-3 within the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0. b) vv | Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. should be corrected to say: | Example 3: the label for the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0. c) vv | Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2 | in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 ^^ is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0. should be corrected to say: | Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth VT Group/TUG-2 | in the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0. and d) vv | Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT | Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the ^^ Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. should be corrected to say: | Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth VT | Group/TUG-2 within the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8. (5) incomplete example In Annex 1, at the bottom of page 21, the last list item says: 10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 components), MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal. This text does not specify the significant NCC value. It should say instead: 10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with | value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3 components), MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
Notes:
This Erratum was duplicated from Erratum 43 in order to separate the issues raised. Note that the remaining issues in this Erratum are typos or within examples, hence the Erratum is reclassified as Editorial.