RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 3746, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework", April 2004

Source of RFC: forces (rtg)

Errata ID: 5340
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2018-04-27
Held for Document Update by: Martin Vigoureux
Date Held: 2019-09-09

Section 4.3 says:

   FEs and CEs may join and leave NEs dynamically (see [4] Section 5,
   requirements #12).  When an FE or CE leaves the NE, the association
   with the NE is broken.  If the leaving party rejoins an NE later, to
   re-establish the association, it may need to re-enter the pre-
   association phase.  Loss of association can also happen unexpectedly
   due to a loss of connection between the CE and the FE.  Therefore,
   the framework allows the bi-directional transition between these two
   phases, but the ForCES Protocol is only applicable for the post-
   association phase.  However, the protocol should provide mechanisms
   to support association re-establishment.  This includes the ability
   for CEs and FEs to determine when there is a loss of association
   between them, and to restore association and efficient state
   (re)synchronization mechanisms (see [4] Section 5, requirement #7).
   Note that security association and state must also be re-established
   to guarantee the same level of security (including both
   authentication and authorization) exists before and after the
   association re-establishment.


It should say:

   FEs and CEs may join and leave NEs dynamically (see [4] Section 4,
   requirements #12).  When an FE or CE leaves the NE, the association
   with the NE is broken.  If the leaving party rejoins an NE later, to
   re-establish the association, it may need to re-enter the pre-
   association phase.  Loss of association can also happen unexpectedly
   due to a loss of connection between the CE and the FE.  Therefore,
   the framework allows the bi-directional transition between these two
   phases, but the ForCES Protocol is only applicable for the post-
   association phase.  However, the protocol should provide mechanisms
   to support association re-establishment.  This includes the ability
   for CEs and FEs to determine when there is a loss of association
   between them, and to restore association and efficient state
   (re)synchronization mechanisms (see [4] Section 4, requirement #7).
   Note that security association and state must also be re-established
   to guarantee the same level of security (including both
   authentication and authorization) exists before and after the
   association re-establishment.


Notes:

Incorrect reference to Section 5.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5337

Report New Errata