errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC5301, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS", October 2008

Source of RFC: isis (rtg)

Errata ID: 1539

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-10-08
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2011-01-28

Section 2, pg.3 says:

                         [...].  Another possible drawback might be the
   added complexity of DNS.  Also, some DNS implementations might not
|  support A and PTR records for Connection Network Service (CLNS)
   Network Service Access Points (NSAPs).

It should say:

                         [...].  Another possible drawback might be the
   added complexity of DNS.  Also, some DNS implementations might not
|  support A and PTR records for Connectionless-mode Network Service (CLNS)
   Network Service Access Points (NSAPs).

Notes:

Location is 2nd paragraph of Section 2, on top of page 3.

Rationale: Align with correct term in ISO/IEC 8348 clause 7


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC5301, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS", October 2008

Source of RFC: isis (rtg)

Errata ID: 1540

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-10-08
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2011-01-28

Section 7, pg.4 says:

   This document specifies TLV 137, "Dynamic Name".  This TLV has
|  already been allocated and reserved [RFC2763].  As such, no new
|  actions are required on the part of IANA.

It should say:

   This document specifies TLV 137, "Dynamic Name".  This TLV has
|  already been allocated and reserved [RFC2763].  IANA has updated
|  the registry to reference this document for TLV 137.

Notes:

Rationale:
RFC 5226, section 5.2 lists references in IANA Registries
as subject to maintenance, and hence to be covered by IANA
Considerations sections in I-Ds / RFCs. Hence, re-parenting
of registrations should be explicitely mentioned there, in
order to avoid registries to become outdated/incomplete
over time, as has happened repeatedly in the past.

Fortunately, in this case IANA has operated intelligently
and updated the Ref. in the registry without being requested
explicitely. Thanks to IANA!

Nevertheless, I suggest to document this issue in an Errata Note
in order to remind future authors of the possible drawbacks of
not including update instructions for already existing registrations
in their IANA Considerations.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This errata provided no additional information needed by an implementer of RFC5301.


Report New Errata