RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (3)

RFC 4479, "A Data Model for Presence", July 2006

Source of RFC: simple (rai)

Errata ID: 2963

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Raphael Bossek
Date Reported: 2011-09-08
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

Section 7.1. says:

<dm:deviceID>mac:8asd7d7d70</dm:deviceID>
...
<dm:deviceID>mac:8asd7d7d70</dm:deviceID>

It should say:

Replace both with

<dm:deviceID>urn:uuid:698137d0-b395-11e0-aff2-0800200c9a66</dm:deviceID>

Notes:

As mentioned in Errata ID 2131 and 2962 a valid URN as defined in RFC3406: Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms should be used for <dm:deviceID>. This is not the case for this example.
RFC 4479 in section 3.4. Device RECOMMENDS version 1 UUIDs for the <deviceID> element: "For devices with a MAC address, version 1 UUIDs are RECOMMENDED, as they result in a time-based identifier that makes use of the MAC address."

Errata ID: 80

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-11
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

Section 3 says:

   It is central to this model that each attribute
   is affiliated with the service, person, or device because they
   describe that service, presentity, or device.  This is in contrast to
   a model whereby the attributes are associated with the service,
   presentity, or device because they were reported by that service,
   presentity, or device. 

It should say:

   It is central to this model that each attribute
   is affiliated with the service, person, or device because they
   describe that service, person, or device.  This is in contrast to
   a model whereby the attributes are associated with the service,
   person, or device because they were reported by that service,
   person, or device.  

Notes:


Regarding the definition from Section 2, on top of page 4 of the RFC,

Presentity: A presentity combines devices, services, and person
information for a complete picture of a user's presence status on
the network.

IMHO the term "presentity" should have been replaced by "person" to keep this text passage
consistent with the terminology introduced in Section 2.

Errata ID: 2131

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Martin Thomson
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks

Section 7.1 says:

   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
    xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
    xmlns:rp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid"
    xmlns:caps="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:caps"
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">

It should say:

   <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
    xmlns:dm="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:data-model"
    xmlns:rp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid"
    xmlns:caps="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:caps"
    entity="pres:presentity@example.com">

Notes:

The entity attribute of the <presence> element is mandatory. It contains a URI that identifies the presentity.

The namespace prefix binding for "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" is not used in the example and need not appear.

Not corrected here: the example uses an undefined URI scheme, mac:, to identify a device.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×