RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 4993, "A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the Internet Registry Information Service", August 2007

Source of RFC: crisp (app)

Errata ID: 1010

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-07-07

Section 3.1.5 says:

The first paragraph of Section 3.1.5, on page 97of RFC 4993, says:

|  A payload type with version information ('vi') MUST be conformant to
   the XML defined in [8] and use the <versions> element as the root
   element.

It should say:

|  A payload type with version information ('vi') sent from the server
|  to the client MUST be conformant to the XML defined in [8] and use
   the <versions> element as the root element.

Notes:

As mentioned in other places of the text, this requirements language
is improper because it is intended to allow clients to send this
type of chunk as well, with unspecified (perhaps empty) content,
to be ignored by the server.

Note: This issue is a replication of the issue detailed in item (A.3)
for RFC 4992.

Errata ID: 2320

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-07-07

Section 8 says:

The first paragraph of Section 8, on page 12 of RFC 4993, says:

   IRIS-LWZ is intended for serving public data; it provides no in-band
   mechanisms for authentication or confidentiality.  Any application
   with these needs must provide out-of-band mechanisms (e.g., IPsec),
   or use the IRIS transfer protocols that provide such capabilities,
|  such as IRIS-XPC [9].
                ^^^

It should say:

   IRIS-LWZ is intended for serving public data; it provides no in-band
   mechanisms for authentication or confidentiality.  Any application
   with these needs must provide out-of-band mechanisms (e.g., IPsec),
   or use the IRIS transfer protocols that provide such capabilities,
|  such as IRIS over XPCS [9].
                ^^^^^^^^^

Notes:

The last phrase fatally misses the requirement.
The needed services are only provided by the TLS encapsulation of
IRIS-XPC, the compound protocol being named IRIS over XPCS in [9], and
that is being made visible via explicit iris.xpcs URIs [9].

Alexey: the term IRIS-XPCS is not defined in [9], but "IRIS over XPCS" is used. So I modified the change accordingly.

Report New Errata