|
|
|
|
Found 2 records.
Errata ID: 770
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Reported By: Rajesh Garg
Date Reported: 2006-03-21
Section 5.2 says:
If new query is Group and Source Specific query and there is pending response for this group and recorded source list for the group is empty (i.e. previous query was Group Specific query)
It should say:
[see note]
Notes:
In section 5.2 of RFC 3376, 5 sequential steps are given to handle the
received query from the multicast router.
I feel the following case is not handled properly in these steps (see above)
In this case, source list will be cleared as per step 4 of section 5.2.
But I feel the source list should be recorded to generate the report
accordingly.
from pending
Errata ID: 1501
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Dave Thaler
Date Reported: 2008-09-08
Section Boilerplate says:
Network Working Group B. Cain
Request for Comments: 3376 Cereva Networks
Obsoletes: 2236 S. Deering
Category: Standards Track I. Kouvelas
Cisco Systems
B. Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
A. Thyagarajan
Ericsson
October 2002
It should say:
Network Working Group B. Cain
Request for Comments: 3376 Cereva Networks
Updates: 2236 S. Deering
Category: Standards Track I. Kouvelas
Cisco Systems
B. Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
A. Thyagarajan
Ericsson
October 2002
Notes:
RFC 3376 does not completely replace RFC 2236, so it should say "updates" instead of "obsoletes". Specifically, to have a compliant implementation of RFC 3376 section 4, one MUST understand and implement the "Version 2 Membership Report" and "Version 2 Leave Group" messages. This is why RFC 2236 is listed as a normative reference of RFC 3376. (In general, it should be the case that one cannot obsolete a normative reference.)