RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 4851, "The Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", May 2007

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8996, RFC 9427

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP

Errata ID: 953
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-12

Section 4.2.9 says:

      Action

         The Action field is two octets.  Values include:

            Process-TLV

            Negotiate-EAP

It should say:

      Action

         The Action field is two octets.  Values include:

         1  Process-TLV

         2  Negotiate-EAP

Notes:

The 'Action' code points to be dropped from the final text.

from pending

Errata ID: 952
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-12
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-02

 

Section 3.2.1 -- terminological mismatch

Only in this section, the RFC uses the spelling "SessionID" (4 x);
throughout the remainder of the text, "Session ID" is used.


Section 3.2.3 -- typo

In the 3rd text line of Section 3.2.3, on page 12,
the RFC test:

             ... contains a empty Session ID
should say:
             ... contains an empty Session ID
                            ^

Section 3.3.1 -- typo

In the second line of the last paragraph of Section 3.3.1,
on page 13, the RFC text:

             ... If either indicates failure. then the method is
should say:
             ... If either indicates failure, then the method is
                                            ^

Section 3.7 -- typo

In the first line of the second paragraph of Section 3.7,
the RFC text:

   Since EAP is an lock-step protocol, [...]
                 ^
should say:

   Since EAP is a lock-step protocol, [...]


Section 5.5 -- typo

In the third line of Section 5.5 (on page 35), as in many other
places in the RFC, the initial

   Where

should be

   where


Section 6 -- inconsistent use of established terms

The RFC 2434 requirements terms are spelled inconsistently.
For uniformity, at the bottom of page 36,

           ... based on specifications required ...
                        ^            ^ ^
should be:
           ... based on Specification Required ...

and in the fourth line on page 37,

           ... on a specification required basis ...
                    ^             ^
should be:
           ... on a Specification Required basis ...


Section 7.4.1 -- typos

there are two typos in the last part of the first paragraph
of Section 7.4.1; the lines on top of page 40,
                      vvv
|  is unauthenticated an may not have any relevance to the authenticated
   identity.  EAP-FAST implementations should not attempt to compare any
   identity disclosed in the initial cleartext EAP Identity response
|  packet with those Identities authenticated in Phase 2
                                                        ^
should say:
                        v
|  is unauthenticated and may not have any relevance to the authenticated
   identity.  EAP-FAST implementations should not attempt to compare any
   identity disclosed in the initial cleartext EAP Identity response
|  packet with those Identities authenticated in Phase 2.

It should say:

[see above]

Notes:

editorial nits.

from pending.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search