RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 7 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4234, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", October 2005

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5234

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 160

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-10-13

Section 3.10 says:

         Strings, Names formation

         Comment

         Value range

         Repetition

         Grouping, Optional

         Concatenation

         Alternative

It should say:

         Strings, Names formation

         Comment

         Value range

         Grouping, Optional

         Repetition

         Concatenation

         Alternative


Notes:

This re-ordering aligns the table with the prose description and the
meta-grammar in section 4.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4234, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", October 2005

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5234

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 2625

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-10-13
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Date Held: 2010-11-12

Section Appendix B.2 says:

   Externally, data are represented as "network virtual ASCII" (namely,
   7-bit US-ASCII in an 8-bit field), with the high (8th) bit set to
   zero.

It should say:

   Externally, data are represented as "network virtual ASCII" (namely,
   7-bit US-ASCII in an 8-bit field, with the high (8th) bit set to
   zero).

Notes:

This change should make it clear (as in RFC 2234) that the phrase,
"with the high (8th) bit set to zero" is an intrinsic part of the
full definition of "network virtual ASCII", and not the specification
of an exception -- or an additional manipulation for the purpose of
ABNF -- to "network virtual ASCII".

Status: Rejected (5)

RFC 4234, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", October 2005

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5234

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 777

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Zoltan Ordogh
Date Reported: 2006-09-18
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Rejected: 2010-09-02

Section 3.4 says:

   A range of alternative numeric values can be specified compactly,
   using dash ("-") to indicate the range of alternative values.  Hence:

         DIGIT       =  %x30-39

   is equivalent to:

         DIGIT       =  "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" /

                        "7" / "8" / "9"

It should say:

[not supplied]

Notes:

The word equivalent is correct only when US-ASCII character set is used, since:

DIGIT = %x30-39 ;
means any hexadecimal value between 0x30 and 0x39,

while

DIGIT = "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9" ;
means any digit from 0 thru 9.

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As per Note in Section 2.3:

ABNF strings are case-insensitive and the character set for these
strings is us-ascii.

So these 2 representations *are* equivalent.

Errata ID: 778

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Zoltan Ordogh
Date Reported: 2006-09-18
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Rejected: 2010-09-02

In Appendix B.1, it says:

         CHAR           =  %x01-7F
                                ; any 7-bit US-ASCII character,
                                ;  excluding NUL

It should say:

[see below]

Notes:

NUL is not defined.

Suggestions:
(1)
Re-write the document in a character-encoding-independent manner.
(2)
Add definition of NUL (or NULL) as terminating null character - watch =
out for character encoding!
(3)
Add definition of NOTNULL as any character but terminating null =
character - watch out for character encoding!

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
NUL is defined in US-ASCII.

Errata ID: 783

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-10-13
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2010-11-18

 

 The following clarifications apply to the meta-grammar in section 4.

a) Near the bottom of page 10, the rule:

         repetition     =  [repeat] element

   should say:

|        repetition     =  ( [repeat] element ) / option

   At the top of page 11, the rule:

         element        =  rulename / group / option /
                           char-val / num-val / prose-val

   should say:

|        element        =  rulename / group /
                           char-val / num-val / prose-val

   These changes have the effect to formally disallow
   a <repeat> element in front of an <option>
   -- a senseless construct formerly unexpectedly allowed.

b) On page 11, the last rule:

         prose-val      =  "<" *(%x20-3D / %x3F-7E) ">"
                               ; bracketed string of SP and VCHAR
                               ;  without angles
                               ; prose description, to be used as
                               ;  last resort
   should say:

         prose-val      =  "<" *(%x20-3D / %x3F-7E) ">"
|                              ; bracketed string of:
|                              ;  SP and VCHAR without closing angle
                               ; prose description, to be used as
                               ;  last resort

   This change aligns the comment with the formal rule.

It should say:

[see above]  

Notes:

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Peter: The authors have consensus that these are stylistic issues and therefore are not errors.

Errata ID: 159

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2006-01-31
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2010-09-15

Section 2.4 says:

    External representations of terminal value characters will vary
    according to constraints in the storage or transmission environment.
    Hence, the same ABNF-based grammar may have multiple external
    encodings, such as one for a 7-bit US-ASCII environment, another for
    a binary octet environment, and still a different one when 16-bit
    Unicode is used.  Encoding details are beyond the scope of ABNF,
    although Appendix A (Core) provides definitions for a 7-bit US-ASCII
    environment as has been common to much of the Internet.

It should say:

    External representations of terminal value characters will vary
    according to constraints in the storage or transmission environment.
    Hence, the same ABNF-based grammar may have multiple external
    encodings, such as one for a 7-bit US-ASCII environment, another for
    a binary octet environment, and still a different one when 16-bit
    Unicode is used.  Encoding details are beyond the scope of ABNF,
    although Appendix B (CORE ABNF OF ABNF) provides definitions for
    a 7-bit US-ASCII environment as has been common to much of the
    Internet.

Notes:


--VERIFIER NOTES--
Fixed in RFC 5234.

Errata ID: 866

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Julian Reschke
Date Reported: 2007-03-02
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2010-09-15

Appendix A says:

    External representations of terminal value characters will vary
    according to constraints in the storage or transmission environment.
    Hence, the same ABNF-based grammar may have multiple external
    encodings, such as one for a 7-bit US-ASCII environment, another for
    a binary octet environment, and still a different one when 16-bit
    Unicode is used.  Encoding details are beyond the scope of ABNF,
    although Appendix A (Core) provides definitions for a 7-bit US-ASCII
    environment as has been common to much of the Internet.

It should say:

    External representations of terminal value characters will vary
    according to constraints in the storage or transmission environment.
    Hence, the same ABNF-based grammar may have multiple external
    encodings, such as one for a 7-bit US-ASCII environment, another for
    a binary octet environment, and still a different one when 16-bit
    Unicode is used.  Encoding details are beyond the scope of ABNF,
    although Appendix B (Core) provides definitions for a 7-bit US-ASCII
    environment as has been common to much of the Internet.

Notes:

Appendix A" by "Appendix B" here.

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Fixed in RFC 5234.

Report New Errata