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



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×