errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC5420, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", February 2009

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 1689

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-02-20
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel

Section 11.3, pg.19 says:

a)
   The IANA has created a new registry and will manage the space of
|  attributes bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation:
            ^
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.

b)
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   - Bit number
   - Defining RFC
   - Name of bit
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Resv
   - Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes subobject


It should say:

a)
   The IANA has created a new registry and will manage the space of
   attribute bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation:
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.

b)
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   - Bit number
   - Defining RFC
   - Name of bit
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path message
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Resv message
   - Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes subobject

Notes:

Rationale:

a) grammar fix in the body of RFC 5420 vs. RFC 4420
should also be reflected in the IANA Considerations
(and in the IANA registry -- subject to independent report to IANA);

b) language improvement applied in the body of the RFC
should also be reflected in the IANA Considerations.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC5420, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", February 2009

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 1688

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-02-20
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2010-01-02

Section 11.2,11.3 says:

     ... allocated only by IETF Consensus.
                                ^^^^^^^^^

It should say:

     ... allocated only by IETF Review.
                                ^^^^^^

Notes:

Location:
a) last paragraph of section 11.2
b) third paragraph of section 11.3

Rationale:
Adaptation to updated IANA policy terminology as per RFC 5226
has been missed.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The IANA action was correctly taken in this case before the adoption of RFC5226 as an RFC. Thus the IANA action was correct. Furthermore, the mapping from IETF Consensus to IETF Review is well-known.


Report New Errata