RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 3970, "A Traffic Engineering (TE) MIB", January 2005

Source of RFC: tewg (subip)

Errata ID: 734

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-02-25


Page 16:

The DESCRIPTION clauses of
    -  teTunnelOctects and teTunnelLPOctects
    -  teTunnelPackets and teTunnelLPPackets
are pairwise identical, respectively.

There is no precise description of the precise meaning of
these  "teTunnelLPxxx"  objects.
Admittedly, one might guess from the SYNTAX clauses of these
objects that "LP" stands for 'lower part' -- meaning that the
value of a "teTunnelLPOctets" object should always equal the
value of the corresponding "teTunnelOctets" object MODULO 2^32
(and similarly for the "...Packets" objects), but this is not
stated in the text.

Furthermore, unfortunately the naming of these objects does
not conform to the conventional naming style used in (almost)
all IETF standards track MIB modules with High Capacity
counters, e. g.  "xxxOctets"  and  "xxxHCOctets" .
The above interpretation would be more manifest if this
standard naming convention would have been followed.

Now, given that the naming of the objects cannot be changed
any more, it would certainly be useful to have a textual
clarification of these DESCRIPTIONs posted on the RFC Editor's
RFC-Errata web page.

It should say:

[not submitted]


from pending

Report New Errata

Search RFCs
Advanced Search