errata logo graphic

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (5)

RFC5444, "Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message Format", February 2009

Source of RFC: manet (rtg)

Errata ID: 3496

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Christopher Dearlove
Date Reported: 2013-02-25
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2013-02-28

Section Appendix A says:

   o  The <pkt-seq-num> field, if present, contains a sequence number
      that is incremented by 1 for each packet generated by a node.  The
      sequence number after 65535 is 0.  In other words, the sequence
      number "wraps" in the usual way.

It should say:

   o  The <pkt-seq-num> field, if present, contains a sequence number
      that SHOULD be maintained for each participating interface and
      incremented by 1 for each packet generated by a node for that
      interface.  The sequence number after 65535 is 0.  In other words,
      the sequence number "wraps" in the usual way.

Notes:

Packet sequence number should be per interface, not per node. Uses that recognise missing packet sequence numbers only work in the corrected (intended) case.


Errata ID: 1790

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Yannick Lacharité
Date Reported: 2009-06-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2011-08-04

Section Appendix E says:

[...]

The packet contains a single message with length 54 octets.
                                                  ^
[...]

      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|    Packet Sequence Number     | Message Type  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0|   Orig Addr   |
                                                    ^

It should say:

[...]

The packet contains a single message with length 55 octets.
                                                  ^
[...]

      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|    Packet Sequence Number     | Message Type  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1|   Orig Addr   |
                                                    ^

Notes:

Correction to the message length, which is 55 instead of 54.


Errata ID: 3497

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Christopher Dearlove
Date Reported: 2013-02-25
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2013-02-28

Section Appendix D.6 says:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |0|0|0|0|1|M|Rsv|            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                             Value                             |
     |                                                               |
     |               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It should say:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |0|0|0|1|1|M|Rsv|            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                             Value                             |
     |                                                               |
     |               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Notes:

Corrects example TLV to have correct <tlv-flags> bits.


Errata ID: 4003

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Christopher Dearlove
Date Reported: 2014-05-29
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-05-29

Section Appendix B says:

  o  <msg-hop-limit> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
     which the packet is allowed to travel before being discarded by a
     MANET router.  The <msg-hop-limit> is set by the message
     originator and is used to prevent messages from endlessly
     circulating in a MANET.  When forwarding a message, a MANET router
     should decrease the <msg-hop-limit> by 1, and the message should
     be discarded when <msg-hop-limit> reaches 0.

  o  <msg-hop-count> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
     which the packet has traveled across the MANET.  The <msg-hop-
     count> is set to 0 by the message originator and is used to
     prevent messages from endlessly circulating in a MANET.  When
     forwarding a message, a MANET router should increase <msg-hop-
     count> by 1 and should discard the message when <msg-hop-count>
     reaches 255.

It should say:

  o  <msg-hop-limit> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
     which the message is allowed to travel before being discarded by a
     MANET router.  The <msg-hop-limit> is set by the message
     originator and is used to prevent messages from endlessly
     circulating in a MANET.  When forwarding a message, a MANET router
     should decrease the <msg-hop-limit> by 1, and the message should
     be discarded when <msg-hop-limit> reaches 0.

  o  <msg-hop-count> field, if present, contains the number of hops on
     which the message has traveled across the MANET.  The <msg-hop-
     count> is set to 0 by the message originator and is used to
     prevent messages from endlessly circulating in a MANET.  When
     forwarding a message, a MANET router should increase <msg-hop-
     count> by 1 and should discard the message when <msg-hop-count>
     reaches 255.

Notes:

Two changes of "packet" to "message". Message is consistent with the normative Section 5.2 that defines these fields (which may appear in each message, so are not uniquely defined for a packet), the text introducing these bullet points, and the remainder of these paragraphs.

(Note that the original and corrected text has had indentation reduced by one space.)


Errata ID: 4178

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Ronald in 't Velt
Date Reported: 2014-11-13
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-11-18

Section 6.5.1 says:

When an Address Block TLV Type is registered, then a new registry for
type extensions of that type must be created.  A document that
defines a Message TLV Type MUST also specify the mechanism by which
its type extensions are allocated, from among those in [BCP26].

It should say:

When an Address Block TLV Type is registered, then a new registry for
type extensions of that type must be created.  A document that
defines an Address Block TLV Type MUST also specify the mechanism by
which its type extensions are allocated, from among those in [BCP26].

Notes:

'Message TLV Type' should read 'Address Block TLV Type'. This is likely a 'Copy-Paste' error from section 6.4.1, which stipulates a similar requirement for Message TLV Type Extension Registry creation.


Report New Errata