RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 4671, "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (ops)

Errata ID: 881

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu

Section 7 says:

[[DESCRIPTION clause of the radiusAuthServResetTime OBJECT-TYPE declaration]]

                "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.'  For software that does not
                 have persistence or does not support a 'reset'
                 operation, this value will be zero."

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 hundredths of a second) since the
                 server was 'reset'.  For software that does not
                 have persistence or does not support a 'reset'
                 operation, this value will be zero."

Notes:

This does not conform to the 'rational quoting' style required
by the RFC authoring guidelines.

from pending

Errata ID: 882

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu

Section 7 says:

hundredths of a second

It should say:

centiseconds

Notes:

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

This applies to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
- radiusAccServUpTime (RFC 4671, page 7),
- radiusAccServResetTime (RFC 4671, page 7),

from pending

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 4671, "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (ops)

Errata ID: 879

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)

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 title change needed - ipv6 covers also previous ipv4 support

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×