RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 3931, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", March 2005

Source of RFC: l2tpext (int)

Errata ID: 210

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Ming Deng
Date Reported: 2007-05-09

Section 3 says:

SSHTRESH

It should say:

SSTHRESH

Notes:

Occurs 3 times.

from pending.

Errata ID: 1433

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Stefan Puiu
Date Reported: 2008-05-30
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-05-09

Section 4.5 says:

The LCCE then checks the Cookie field in the data packet against 
the Cookie value received in the Assigned Cookie AVP during session
establishment.

It should say:

The LCCE then checks the Cookie field in the data packet against 
the Cookie value sent in the Assigned Cookie AVP during session 
establishment.

Notes:

Section 5.4.4 contradicts this directly ("All data messages sent to a peer MUST use the Assigned Cookie sent by the peer in this AVP"), and seems consistent with the rest of the 'assigned ...' fields.

Errata ID: 211

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Carlos Pignataro
Date Reported: 2005-10-31

Section 5.4.5 says:

      This AVP MAY be hidden (the H bit MAY be 0 or 1).  The M bit for
      this AVP SHOULD be set to 0, but MAY vary (see Section 5.2).  The
      Length (before hiding) of this AVP is 32.

It should say:

     
      This AVP MAY be hidden (the H bit MAY be 0 or 1).  The M bit for
      this AVP SHOULD be set to 0, but MAY vary (see Section 5.2).  The
      Length (before hiding) of this AVP is 24.

Notes:



Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 3931, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", March 2005

Source of RFC: l2tpext (int)

Errata ID: 3766

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Chaz Granholm
Date Reported: 2013-10-26
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Date Held: 2013-10-29

Section 8.2.3 says:

Further, it is far easier to change a compromised L2TPv3
   Cookie than a compromised IP address," and a cryptographically random
   [RFC1750] value is far less likely to be discovered by brute-force
   attacks compared to an IP address.

It should say:

Further, it is far easier to change a compromised L2TPv3
   Cookie than a compromised IP address, and a cryptographically random
   [RFC1750] value is far less likely to be discovered by brute-force
   attacks compared to an IP address.

Notes:

Erroneous quotation mark.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 3931, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", March 2005

Source of RFC: l2tpext (int)

Errata ID: 2766

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Teco Boot
Date Reported: 2011-04-04
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-05-09

Section 4.1.4 says:

   An LCCE MAY fragment a packet before encapsulating it in L2TP.  For
   example, if an IPv4 packet arrives at an LCCE from a Remote System
   that, after encapsulation with its associated framing, L2TP, and IP,
   does not fit in the available path MTU towards its LCCE peer, the
   local LCCE may perform IPv4 fragmentation on the packet before tunnel
   encapsulation. 

It should say:

   An LCCE MAY fragment a packet before encapsulating it in L2TP.  For
   example, if an IPv4 packet with DF=0 arrives at an LCCE from a Remote System
   that, after encapsulation with its associated framing, L2TP, and IP,
   does not fit in the available path MTU towards its LCCE peer, the
   local LCCE may perform IPv4 fragmentation on the packet before tunnel
   encapsulation. 

Notes:

Following RFC 791, IPv4 packets with the DF flag set shall not fragment such packets. RFC 3931 shall not make a precedent for fragmenting IPv4 packets with DF=1.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The original text uses MAY so it does not mandate fragmentation behavior.

Report New Errata