RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 7959, "Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", August 2016

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8323

Source of RFC: core (wit)

Errata ID: 7523
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Christian Amsüss
Date Reported: 2023-05-24
Verifier Name: Murray Kucherawy
Date Verified: 2023-07-08

Section 3 says:

   then the block number (NUM), more bit (M), and block size exponent
   (2**(SZX+4)) separated by slashes.  For example, a Block2 Option

It should say:

   then the block number (NUM), more bit (M), and block size
   (2**(SZX+4)) separated by slashes.  For example, a Block2 Option

Notes:

The examples are given in the style of "2:1/1/128", wher 128 is the size (2**(SZX+4)), not the size exponent -- it contains the size exponent in the expression, but the full expression is the size.

(Reporting this as an erratum because the use of "SZX" for "size" instead of "size exponent" has some potential for spreading and creating confusion; for example in Wireshark at https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/10763)

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 7959, "Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", August 2016

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8323

Source of RFC: core (wit)

Errata ID: 6083
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Reported: 2020-04-09
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2020-04-10

Section 2.1 says:

       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       |  23 | C | U | - | - | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
       |  27 | C | U | - | - | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers

It should say:

       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       | No. | C | U | N | R | Name   | Format | Length | Default |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+
       |  23 | x | x | - |   | Block2 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       |     |   |   |   |   |        |        |        |         |
       |  27 | x | x | - |   | Block1 | uint   |    0-3 | (none)  |
       +-----+---+---+---+---+--------+--------+--------+---------+

                       Table 1: Block Option Numbers

Notes:

* This is to align with the conventions in Section 5.10 of RFC7252
* These options are not repeatable as per:

"Either Block option MUST NOT occur more than once in a
single message."

Report New Errata



Advanced Search