RFC 4447, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", April 2006

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8077

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6723, RFC 6870, RFC 7358

Errata ID: 3115
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07

Section 5.1 says:

(page 8, the first 2 tables)

   This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP:

   TLV                    Specified in Section     Defined for Message
   ===================================================================
   PW Status TLV                  5.4.2            Notification
   PW Interface Parameters TLV    5.3.2.1          FEC
   PW Grouping  ID TLV            5.3.2.2          FEC


   Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined:

   FEC Element Type        Specified in Section    Defined for Message
   ===================================================================
   0x80                            5.2             FEC
   0x81                            5.3             FEC

It should say:

   This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP:

   TLV                      Specified in Section   Defined for Message
   ===================================================================
   PW Status TLV                    5.4.2          Notification
|  PW Interface Parameters TLV      5.3.2.1        with FEC TLV
|  PW Grouping ID TLV               5.3.2.2        with FEC TLV


   Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined:

|  FEC Element Type     FEC Element Name          Specified in Section
   ===================================================================
|  0x80                 PWid                               5.2
|  0x81                 Generalized PWid                   5.3

Notes:

wrong term(s) used in table(s).
Apparently, "FEC" is not appropriate in the last column of the first
table, and "Defined for Message" makes no sense in the second table,
where only "FEC" appears, as "FEC" is not an LDP message, it is a TLV.
Perhaps, the latter column is dispensable, in favor of a new column
showing the name of the FEC element.

-- VERIFIER NOTES --
The editors should look at this if there is an update.

The table is a quick index to information about a specific FEC and likely will be removed in a future version of this RFC.

Report New Errata