Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5954, "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", August 2010

Errata ID: 4929
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: David van Moolenbroek
Date Reported: 2017-02-08

Section 3.1 says:

   Because the <hexpart> production rule is defined such that two of its
   alternatives already include the "::" token, this may yield to the
   faulty construction of an IPv6-mapped IPv4 address with an extra
   colon when expanding those alternatives.

It should say:

   Because the <hexpart> production rule is defined such that two of its
   alternatives already include the "::" token, this may yield to the
   faulty construction of an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address with an extra
   colon when expanding those alternatives.

Notes:

The text refers to an IPv6 address, and thus should use the proper term "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address," in line with the section title, the rest of the document, and (in particular) RFC 4291.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 5954, "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", August 2010

Errata ID: 2502
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-08-23
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

Section 4.2, page 5 says:

   NEW:

   o  For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
|     components must match.  If the host component contains a textual
|     representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
      IP addresses may vary.  If so, the host components are considered
      to match if the different textual representations yield the same
      binary IP address.

It should say:

   NEW:

   o  For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
|     components must match.  If both host components contain the textual
|     representation of an IP address, then the representation of those
      IP addresses may vary.  If so, the host components are considered
      to match if the different textual representations yield the same
      binary IP address.

Notes:

Rationale: Essential clarification of potentially misleading grammar
and semantics including singular/plural mismatches. Because of the
perceived significance, this erratum is designated as Technical.

Report New Errata