RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014

Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)

Errata ID: 3885
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Cullen Jennings
Date Reported: 2014-02-07
Verifier Name: Richard Barnes
Date Verified: 2014-02-15

Section 14.9 says:

   | Reserved                            | 0x8000..0xFFFE |  RFC 6940 |

It should say:

   | Reserved                            | 0x8000..0xFFFF |  RFC 6940 |

Notes:

Clearly there was some confusion and at least one of the authors thought that 0xFFFE was the largest 16 bit integer when in fact it should have been 0xFFFF. I would like to thank Pearl Liang for catching this mistake.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014

Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)

Errata ID: 5530
Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Michael Chen
Date Reported: 2018-10-16

Section 10.7.4.4 says:

P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Node-ID routed through B.

It should say:

P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B.

Notes:

10.7.4.4 says, "repeat the discovery process used in the initial join", which refers to the 2nd paragraph after 10.5.9:

"It SHOULD send a Ping directed at Resource-ID n+1 (directly after its own Resource-ID)."

Ping Node-ID is simply wrong. This correction makes it consistent with 10.5.9. Credit goes to xramtsov in the mailing list.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014

Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)

Errata ID: 4486
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Roland Bless
Date Reported: 2015-09-28
Held for Document Update by: Ben Campbell
Date Held: 2015-09-28

Section 10.8 says:

10.8.  Route Query f.in 3

It should say:

10.8.  Route Query

Notes:

This is a formatting nit, probably caused by an nroff remnant. However, a bit confusing nevertheless...

Report New Errata