RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 5623, "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", September 2009

Source of RFC: pce (rtg)

Errata ID: 1898

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-09-30
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel

Section 4.2.2,pg.14 says:

     Step 4:  H1 initiates higher-layer signaling using the computed
|             explicit router of H2-L1-L2-H3-H4.
                            ^

It should say:

     Step 4:  H1 initiates higher-layer signaling using the computed
|             explicit route of H2-L1-L2-H3-H4.

Notes:

Rationale: confusing typo.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 5623, "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", September 2009

Source of RFC: pce (rtg)

Errata ID: 1897

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-09-30
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2009-11-07

Section 4.1, says:

a) Section 4.1, 2nd paragraph (bottom of page 10):

   A VNT Manager (VNTM) is defined as a functional element that manages
   and controls the VNT.  The PCE and VNT Manager are distinct
|  functional elements that may or may not be collocated.
                                                ^^

b) Section 4.2.4, trailing Note below Table 1 (on page 22):

   * Note that, in case of NSM-VNTM cooperation (separate flavor) and
     single PCE inter-layer path computation, the PCE function used by
|    NMS and VNTM may be collocated, but it will operate on separate
     TEDs.
                           ^^

It should say:

a)

   A VNT Manager (VNTM) is defined as a functional element that manages
   and controls the VNT.  The PCE and VNT Manager are distinct
|  functional elements that may or may not be co-located.

b)

   * Note that, in case of NSM-VNTM cooperation (separate flavor) and
     single PCE inter-layer path computation, the PCE function used by
|    NMS and VNTM may be co-located, but it will operate on separate
     TEDs.
 

Notes:

Rationale:
"collocated" and "co-located" (or "colocated") have very different
semantics! The latter seems to be the appropriate choice: two
logical entites (or subsystems) are located within the same system.
The former means "arranged/placed/sorted *somehow*, in the proper
way", without emphasis on neighborship or common enclosement.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Email discussions with the RFC Editor yielded the following answer that appears to set the editorial standard for this word within RFCs going forward.

According to this text, the RFC is correct.
----
This particular word is accepted in many forms. Historically, we have
defaulted to co-located when spelled inconsistently within a document.
However, we do not apply this uniformly across the series because
there are so many accepted forms of the word. For example:

Webster's Dictionary has entries for colocate (1965) and
collocate (1513), but there is no entry for co-locate.

Webopeida only recognizes co-location.

Wikipedia lists

Colocation/collocation may refer to:

* Colocation (business), the placement of several entities in a
single location.
* The provision of computing services in a third-party colocation
centre.
* Collocation, in corpus linguistics, a sequence of words that
often occur together.
* Collocation method, used in maths to solve differential and
integral equations.

Additionally, the topic is discussed with no clear answer. For
example, see
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-17495.html.

Our editor looked up "collocation" in Webster's, and believed that it
was correct, as it is defined as:

to set or arrange in a place or position; especially : to set side
by side

If we notice multiple spellings within a document, we tend to default
to "co-locate", but if the document consistently uses "collocation" or
"colocation", we do not change the spelling.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×