RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 3209, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", December 2001

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 2669

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Mahesh
Date Reported: 2010-12-10
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2011-01-28

Section 4.3.3.1 says:

The path between a loose node and its preceding node MAY include other network nodes that are not part of the strict node or its preceding abstract node.


It should say:

The path between a loose node and its preceding node MAY include other network nodes that are not part of the loose node or its preceding abstract node.

Notes:

Narration incorrectly refers to "strict" node while describing "loose" node.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 3209, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", December 2001

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 4733

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Ramakrishna DTV
Date Reported: 2016-07-06
Held for Document Update by: Deborah Brungard
Date Held: 2016-07-12

Section 4.3.2 says:

   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   set of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node consists
   of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

It should say:

   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   sequence of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node 
   consists of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

Notes:

s/set/sequence

A set implies ordering of abstract nodes is NOT important.
A sequence implies ordering of abstract nodes IS important.

In the rest of RFC 3209, this distinction is maintained, but not
in this paragraph.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×