errata logo graphic

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC5454, "Dual-Stack Mobile IPv4", March 2009

Source of RFC: mip4 (int)

Errata ID: 1718

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-15
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2013-03-16

Section 2.1, pg.5 says:

   Prefix Length

      A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix;
      all insignificant (low-order) bits (beyond the Prefix Length) MUST
      be set to 0 by the originator of the option and ignored by the
      receiver.

   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

It should say:

   Prefix Length

|     Indicates the prefix length of the prefix included in the Mobile
|     IPv6 Network Prefix field.  A value of 255 indicates that a link-
|     local address is included in the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix field.

   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

|     A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix;
|     all insignificant (low-order) bits (beyond the Prefix Length) MUST
|     be set to 0 by the originator of the option and ignored by the
|     receiver.

Notes:

The replacement text apparently has been placed into the wrong
field explanation.
The text presented for "Prefix Length" is the text that should
be specified for "Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix"; the correct text
for "Prefix Length" (as shown above) is borrowed from Section 2.2.


Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC5454, "Dual-Stack Mobile IPv4", March 2009

Source of RFC: mip4 (int)

Errata ID: 1720

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-15
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 3.6,pp.13/14 says:

   When IPv6 runs over an IPv4 tunnel, the IPv6 tunnel endpoints can
   treat the IPv4 tunnel as a single hop link as defined in [RFC4213].
   The two tunnel endpoints, e.g., mobile node and home agent, MUST
   configure link-local IPv6 addresses as defined in Section 3.7 of
   [RFC4213], while they MUST also adhere to the neighbor discovery
   requirements of the same specification, Section 3.8, and the hop
|  limit requirements of Section 3.3.

It should say:

   When IPv6 runs over an IPv4 tunnel, the IPv6 tunnel endpoints can
   treat the IPv4 tunnel as a single hop link as defined in [RFC4213].
   The two tunnel endpoints, e.g., mobile node and home agent, MUST
   configure link-local IPv6 addresses as defined in Section 3.7 of
   [RFC4213], while they MUST also adhere to the neighbor discovery
   requirements of the same specification, Section 3.8, and the hop
|  limit requirements of Section 3.3 in [RFC4213].

Notes:

Rationale: The text should also make clear to which document
(this RFC or RFC 4213) the last section number given refers.
Pointing to RFC 4213 twice (but not in the final case) could be
misunderstood, in particular due to the presence of the comma in
front of the "and" in a two-item list.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC5454, "Dual-Stack Mobile IPv4", March 2009

Source of RFC: mip4 (int)

Errata ID: 1719

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-15
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-05-11

Section 2.2, pg.7 says:

   The following values are defined for use as a Code value in the above
   extension:

|     0 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to HoA

|     1 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to CoA

      8 registration rejected, reason unspecified

      9 registration rejected, administratively prohibited

It should say:

   The following values are defined for use as a Code value in the above
   extension:

|     0 registration accepted, IPv6 will be tunneled to HoA

|     1 registration accepted, IPv6 will be tunneled to CoA

      8 registration rejected, reason unspecified

      9 registration rejected, administratively prohibited

Notes:

Rationale: The extension described in this section is sent
from the Home Agent to the Mobile Node and reflects the decisions
made by the Home Agent. "to be tunnelled" could be misunderstood;
the text should better be stated as a confirmation; hence s/to/will/.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The wording clearly conveys the action of tunneling the extension.


Report New Errata