RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 1925, "The Twelve Networking Truths", April 1996

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 532
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: John Ioannidis
Date Reported: 2003-04-08

Section 2 says:

   the word is "agglutinate", not "aglutenate"

Errata ID: 7026
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Martin Thomson
Date Reported: 2022-07-14
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-07-15

Section 2 says:

   (7)  It is always something

It should say:

   (7)  It is always something.

Notes:

This sentence is missing a period.

(It is also incorrect: it can sometimes be nothing. The corollary says "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two", which is often true, but I've been around long enough to know that sometimes people choose none of the above. That is opinion though.)

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 1925, "The Twelve Networking Truths", April 1996

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 3104
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Mark Nottingham
Date Reported: 2012-02-05
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick

Section 2. (2) says:

   (2)  No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
        you can't increase the speed of light.

It should say:

   (2) If you try really hard, and have the right equipment (or 
       suitable funding), you might be able to increase the speed 
       of light. Or not, we're not sure yet.

Notes:

Experimental results suggest it may be possible to go faster; see:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

It's true that these results have not been independently verified, and it's true that the speed of light was not observed to be increased (only exceeded), but there is now enough doubt involved to justify an errata (with a view to an update in a potential future BIS WG).

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 1925, "The Twelve Networking Truths", April 1996

Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT

Errata ID: 4939
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: T Rogers
Date Reported: 2017-02-17
Rejected by: John Scudder
Date Rejected: 2024-02-11

Section 2 says:

No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
        you can't increase the speed of light.

It should say:

No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority, 
you can't increase the speed of light. You can, however, 
slow it down.

Notes:

Light travels more slowly through media such as glass, and the speed depends on frequency - this is how refraction works.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The erratum would have been correct if the original text had said “speed of light in vacuum“, or its synonym, “c”. But it didn’t, so as far as I can see it’s correct, and consistent with the observations made in the notes that were submitted.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search