errata logo graphic

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC5497, "Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", March 2009

Source of RFC: manet (rtg)

Errata ID: 1722

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2012-03-12

Section 6.2, pg.9 says:

[ first bullet: ]

   o  The <length> field in the TLV MUST contain the value m * (2n+1),
|     with n being the number of (time-value, hop count) pairs in the
|     Time TLV, and m being number-values as defined in [RFC5444].

It should say:

   o  The <length> field in the TLV MUST contain the value m * (2n+1),
|     with n being the number of (time-value, hop count) pairs per
|     associated address in the Time TLV, and m being number-values as
      defined in [RFC5444].
 

Notes:

Rationale:
The original text is contradictory in itself, and it opposes the
subsequent bullets and prose in the same section.
The proposed correction (inserting "per associated adddress")
is derived from the text in the first paragraph of the section.


Errata ID: 1723

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2011-08-05

Section 7.1 and 7.2 says:

a) Section 7.1, last paragraph

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

b) Section 7.2, last paragraph

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

It should say:

a)

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.

b)

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.


Notes:

Rationale:
Section 5 only contains the low-level details;
Section 6, contains the precise specification of the
Time TLV format used in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.


Errata ID: 1724

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2011-08-05

Section 8.1 and 8.2 says:

a) Section 8.1, last paragraph

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

b) Section 8.2, last paragraph

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 5.

It should say:

a)

   An INTERVAL_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.

b)

   A VALIDITY_TIME TLV is an example of a Time TLV specified as in
|  Section 6.

Notes:

Rationale:
Section 5 only contains the low-level details;
Section 6 contains the precise specification of the
Time TLV format used in Sections 8.1 and 8.2.

See Errata ID #1723 for similar issues in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.


Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC5497, "Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", March 2009

Source of RFC: manet (rtg)

Errata ID: 1721

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-03-16
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel

Section 6, pg.7 says:

   The following data structure allows the representation of a single
|  time-value, or of a default time-value plus pairs of (time-values,
|  hop counts) for when hop-count-dependent time-values are required.
   [...]

It should say:

   The following data structure allows the representation of a single
|  time-value, or of a default time-value plus pairs of (time-value,
|  hop count) for when hop-count-dependent time-values are required.
   [...]

Notes:

Rationale:
Each pair contains a single 'time-value' and a single 'hop-count'.
See text on pp. 8/9: multiple instances of "(time-value, hop count)".


Report New Errata