RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 5128, "State of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs)", March 2008

Source of RFC: behave (tsv)

Errata ID: 1403

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-31
Held for Document Update by: Magnus Westerlund

Section 3.2,last par says:

   A variety of current peer-to-peer applications implement this
   technique.  Its main limitation, of course, is that it only works so
   long as only one of the communicating peers is behind a NAT device.
|  If the NAT device is EIM-NAT, the public client can contact external
|  server S to determine the specific public endpoint from which to
|  expect Client-A-originated connection and allow connections from just
|  those endpoints.  If the NAT device is EIM-NAT, the public client can
   contact the external server S to determine the specific public
   endpoint from which to expect connections originated by client A, and
   allow connections from just that endpoint.  If the NAT device is not
   EIM-NAT, the public client cannot know the specific public endpoint
   from which to expect connections originated by client A.  In the
   increasingly common case where both peers can be behind NATs, the
   Connection Reversal method fails.  [...]

It should say:

   A variety of current peer-to-peer applications implement this
   technique.  Its main limitation, of course, is that it only works so
   long as only one of the communicating peers is behind a NAT device.
   If the NAT device is EIM-NAT, the public client can contact the
   external server S to determine the specific public endpoint from
   which to expect connections originated by client A, and allow
   connections from just that endpoint.  If the NAT device is not
   EIM-NAT, the public client cannot know the specific public endpoint
   from which to expect connections originated by client A.  In the
   increasingly common case where both peers can be behind NATs, the
   Connection Reversal method fails.  [...]

Notes:

Location is mid-page 11.

Rationale and background:

The reporter once had suggested replacement text to improve the
readability of the third and fourth sentence in this paragraph.
These LC comments have been accepted, but inadvertently, the
third original sentence has been left in the text, followed
by its intended replacement.

Note that the similar replacement of the next sentence
("If the NAT device is not ...") has been performed properly.

The above correction removes the original, less legible draft
version of the other sentence.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×