errata logo graphic

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC5050, "Bundle Protocol Specification", November 2007

Source of RFC: IRTF

Errata ID: 1504

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10

Section 6.1.1,pg.40 says:

|  Fragment Offset:   If the bundle fragment bit is set in the status
|     flags, then the offset (within the original application data unit)
      of the payload of the bundle that caused the status report to be
      generated is included here.

|  Fragment length:   If the bundle fragment bit is set in the status
|     flags, then the length of the payload of the subject bundle is
      included here.

It should say:

|  Fragment Offset:   If the bundle fragment bit is set in the
|     administrative record flags, then the offset (within the original
      application data unit) of the payload of the bundle that caused
      the status report to be generated is included here.

|  Fragment length:   If the bundle fragment bit is set in the
|     administrative record flags, then the length of the payload of
      the subject bundle is included here.

Notes:

Note the distinct fields:
-- administrative record flags (least significant nibble of the
one-octet administrative record header, per Figure 9 on pg.37)
-- status flags (first octet in the body of a bundle status report,
per Figure 11 on page 39)
The fragment bit is contained in the former, not in the latter.

Attention: this same issue recurs literally in Section 6.1.2,
on pg. 43, below Figure 14 !


Errata ID: 1505

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10

Section 6.1.2,pg.43 says:

<same as for Section 6.1.1 -- see Errata ID 1504>

It should say:

<same as for Section 6.1.1 -- see Errata ID 1504>

Errata ID: 1506

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10

Section 10.2,p.47/48 says:

   ... Work Progress, ...

It should say:

   ... Work in Progress, ...

Notes:

Occurs twice, in entry [BSP] and in entry [SECO].

"Work in Progress" is mandatory per various process and IPR documents,
for referring to an Internet-Draft.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC5050, "Bundle Protocol Specification", November 2007

Source of RFC: IRTF

Errata ID: 2694

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-01-28
Rejected by: Lars Eggert
Date Rejected: 2012-02-07

Section 10.1 says:

[URIREG]   Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
           Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
           BCP 115, February 2006.


It should say:

[URIREG]   Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
           Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
           BCP 35, February 2006.


Notes:

BCP number 115 has been mistakenly assigned to RFC 4395. RFC 4395 os BCP 35.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Rejected after IRSG discussion.


Report New Errata