RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (2)

RFC 7307, "LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology", July 2014

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 5145

Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Sandra Murphy
Date Reported: 2017-10-05

Section 4.3.2 says:

   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to the LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to "IPv4 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-
   Topology ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 5.

It should say:

   The format of the MT LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV (type 31) is similar to
   the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV (type 1) as defined in [RFC4379].  In
   addition to the "IPv4 prefix" and "Prefix Length" fields already
   defined in the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV, the new MT LDP IPv4 prefix
   sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-Topology ID) field.  While
   the length of the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV is 5 (and does not include
   the trailing MBZ bytes), the length of this new MT LDP IPv6 prefix 
   sub-TLV is 8 (and does include the internal MBZ byte).

Notes:

The original text uses "this sub-TLV" in ways that can be ambiguous. In particular, the final sentence "The Length for this sub-TLV is 5." is incorrect if "this sub-TLV" refers to the topic of the section, i.e., "MT LDP IPv4 FEC Sub-TLV", but is correct if "this sub-TLV" refers to the LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV defined in RFC4379/RFC8029. The revised text is suggested to remove the ambiguities. Adrian Farrell provided the bulk of the suggested revisions.

In addition, the sub-TLV names are changed to match the names that were registered in the IANA registry, to aid those trying to find the registry entries.

Errata ID: 5146

Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Sandra Murphy
Date Reported: 2017-10-05

Section 4.3.3 says:

   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to the LDP IPv6 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-
   Topology ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.

It should say:

   The format of the MT LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 32) is similar to
   the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV (type 2) as defined in [RFC4379].  In
   addition to the "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix Length" fields already
   defined in the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV, the new MT LDP IPv6 prefix 
   sub-TLV also specifies the MT-ID (Multi-Topology ID) field.  While
   the length of the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV is 17 (and does not include
   the trailing MBZ bytes), the length of this new MT LDP IPv6 prefix
   sub-TLV is 20 (and does include the internal MBZ byte).

Notes:

The original text uses "this sub-TLV" in ways that can be ambiguous. In particular, the final sentence "The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.” is incorrect if "this sub-TLV" refers to the topic of the section, i.e., "MT LDP IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV", but is correct if "this sub-TLV" refers to the LDP IPv6 prefix sub-TLV defined in RFC4379/RFC8029. The revised text is suggested to remove the ambiguities. Adrian Farrell provided the bulk of the suggested revisions.

In addition, the sub-TLV names are changed to match the names that were registered in the IANA registry, to aid those trying to find the registry entries.

Report New Errata