RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4669, "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (ops)

Errata ID: 28

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06

The DESCRIPTION clause of the radiusAuthServResetTime OBJECT-TYPE declaration says:

                "If the server has a persistent state (e.g., a process)
                 and supports a 'reset' operation (e.g., can be told to
                 re-read configuration files), this value will be the
                 time elapsed (in hundredths of a second) since the
                 server was 'reset.'

It should say:

                "If the server has a persistent state (e.g., a process)
                 and supports a 'reset' operation (e.g., can be told to
                 re-read configuration files), this value will be the
|                time elapsed (in centiseconds) since the
|                server was 'reset'. 

Notes:

The original description does not conform to the 'rational quoting' style required by the RFC authoring guidelines.

Also, why not use the common ISO-standard unit-multiple name, "centiseconds" (abbreviation: "cs"), instead of the long-winded "hundredths of a second" ?

This also applies to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
- radiusAuthServUpTime (RFC 4669, top of page 7),

from pending

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 4669, "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (ops)

Errata ID: 876

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Rejected by: Dan Romascanu
Date Rejected: 2009-09-03

 

misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms 
(for RFCs 4668 - 4671) 

misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms 
(for RFCs 4668 - 4671)

IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading.
In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover
IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific!
Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6".

Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here.
As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and
re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard
Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single
Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules".
Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the
proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the
rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".

Notes:

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
no change in title is needed at this stage - ipV6 covers also ipv4n titles

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×