errata logo graphic

Found 4 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC5795, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", March 2010

Source of RFC: rohc (tsv)

Errata ID: 2107

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Lars Eggert

Section 1, pg. 5 says:

[[  1st paragraph on page 5: ]]

|  RFC 3095 [RFC3095] defines the ROHC framework along with an initial
   set of compression profiles.  [...]

It should say:

|  RFC 3095 [RFC3095] defined the ROHC framework along with an initial
   set of compression profiles.  [...]

Notes:

Rationale: This is already the 2nd revision of RFC 3095;
therefore, the adjusted temporal form better reflects
the current state of the art.


Errata ID: 2110

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Lars Eggert

Section 5.2.5.2 says:

[[  at the bottom of page 27: ]]

|  Header: See Section 5.2.1

|  Payload: See Section 5.2.1

|  CRC: 32-bit CRC computed using the polynomial of Section 5.3.1.4

It should say:


|  Header: See Section 5.2.1.

|  Payload: See Section 5.2.1.

|  CRC: 32-bit CRC computed using the polynomial of Section 5.3.1.4.

Notes:

Rationale: consistent use of punctuation within the RFC.


Status: Rejected (2)

RFC5795, "The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", March 2010

Source of RFC: rohc (tsv)

Errata ID: 2108

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Rejected by: Lars Eggert
Date Rejected: 2011-02-03

Section 3.2 says:

[[  last paragraph on page 9: ]]

|  An enhanced variant of CRTP, called eCRTP [RFC3545], means to improve
   the robustness of CRTP in the presence of reordering and packet
   losses, while keeping the protocol almost unchanged from CRTP.  As a
   result, eCRTP does provide better means to implement some degree of
   robustness, albeit at the expense of additional overhead, leading to
   a reduction in compression efficiency in comparison to CRTP.

It should say:

|  An enhanced variant of CRTP, called eCRTP [RFC3545], introduces means
   to improve the robustness of CRTP in the presence of reordering and
   packet losses, while keeping the protocol almost unchanged from CRTP.
   As a result, eCRTP does provide better means to implement some degree
   of robustness, albeit at the expense of additional overhead, leading
   to a reduction in compression efficiency in comparison to CRTP.

Notes:

Rationale: missing verb (legacy).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Reject, but make note to improve this text in next update


Errata ID: 2109

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Rejected by: Lars Eggert
Date Rejected: 2011-02-03

Section 5.1.2, pg.17 says:

[[  first paragraph on page 17: ]]

   PROFILES: Set of non-negative integers, where each integer indicates
   a profile supported by both the compressor and the decompressor.  A
|  profile is identified by a 16-bit value, where the 8 LSB bits
|  indicate the actual profile, and the 8 MSB bits indicate the variant
   of that profile.  The ROHC compressed header format identifies the
|  profile used with only the 8 LSB bits; this means that if multiple
   variants of the same profile are available for a ROHC channel, the
   PROFILES set after negotiation MUST NOT include more than one variant
   of the same profile.  The compressor MUST NOT compress using a
   profile that is not in PROFILES.

It should say:

   PROFILES:  Set of non-negative integers, where each integer indicates
   a profile supported by both the compressor and the decompressor.  A
|  profile is identified by a 16-bit value, where the 8 LSBs indicate
|  the actual profile, and the 8 MSBs indicate the variant of that
   profile.  The ROHC compressed header format identifies the profile
|  used with only the 8 LSBs; this means that if multiple variants of
   the same profile are available for a ROHC channel, the PROFILES set
   after negotiation MUST NOT include more than one variant of the same
   profile.  The compressor MUST NOT compress using a profile that is
   not in PROFILES.

Notes:

Rationale: Abuse of language;
the acronym definitions in Section 2.1 clearly say:
LSB Least Significant Bit.
...
MSB Most Significant Bit.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
proposed change is somewhat pedantic; it actually might reduce readability for some readers


Report New Errata