errata logo graphic

Found 6 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC5952, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", August 2010

Source of RFC: 6man (int)

Errata ID: 2498

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Reported: 2010-08-23
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-06-01

Section 6 says:

"This is due to the "::"usage in IPv6 addresses."

It should say:

"This is due to the ":" usage in IPv6 addresses."

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC5952, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", August 2010

Source of RFC: 6man (int)

Errata ID: 3218

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Rodrigo Curado
Date Reported: 2012-05-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 3.1.4 says:

Network diagrams and blueprints often show what IP addresses are 
assigned to a system devices.

It should say:

Network diagrams and blueprints often show which IP addresses are 
assigned to which systems devices.

Notes:

Improved grammar and correction to mismatch between singular and plural usage.


Errata ID: 3219

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Rodrigo Curado
Date Reported: 2012-05-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 3.1.4 says:

In times of trouble shooting there may be a need to search

It should say:

In times of troubleshooting there may be a need to search

Notes:

"troubleshooting" should be written as one word


Status: Rejected (3)

RFC5952, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", August 2010

Source of RFC: 6man (int)

Errata ID: 2656

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: D. Stussy
Date Reported: 2010-12-02
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-05-30

Section 4.3 says:

4.3.  Lowercase

   The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", and "f" in an IPv6 address
   MUST be represented in lowercase.

It should say:

4.3.  Case of Alphabetic Digits.

   The digits "A" through "F" in an IPv6 address
   MUST be represented in upper case.  User and user
   derived input may be represented using lower case.

Notes:

Historically from the 1960's, hexidecimal digits other than decimal digits are represented by upper case letters. Lower case letters may have become acceptable as user input, but such resulted from lazy programmers who couldn't manage to hit the shift key on their keyboards. However, lower case is not acceptable for digit output. Many early assemblers would not even accept lower case as valid input digits except where the radix base exceeded 36 (thus exhausting all upper case values). This poor programming practice should not be allowed to be codified into any Internet standard.

References:
- Struble, George W., "Assembler Language Programming: The IBM System/360 and /370." Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969 and 1975 (Second Edition), Page 6. ISBN 0-201-7322-6
- Barden, William Jr., "TRS-80 Assembly-Language Programming." Tandy Corporation, 1979, page 14. Library of Congress #79-63607
- Leventhal, Lance A., "6502 Assembly Language Programming." Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1979 and 1986 (Second Edition), Page 1-4. ISBN 0-07-881216-X
- Intel Corporation, "Intel486 Microprocessor Family Programmer's Reference Manual." 1995, Page 1-8 (Section 1.3.4). No ISBN or LoC #.
- Cress, Paul, Dirksen, Paul, and Grahm, J. Wesley, "Fortran IV with WatFor and WatFiv." Prentice-Hall, 1968 and 1970, Page 245. LoC 74-129241
- Mano, M. Morris, "Computer System Architecture." Prentice-Hall, 1982, Page 79. ISBN 0-13-166611-8
- Higgins, Richard J., "Electronics with Digital and Analog Integrated Circuits." Prentice-Hall, 1983, Page 60. ISBN 0-13-250704-8

However, I also note this ONE source permits mixed case:
- Kernighan, Brian W. & Ritchie, Dennis M., "The C Programming Language", Prentice Hall, 1978 (First Edition), Page 180. ISBN 0-13-110163-3

Many other pre-1990 computer science and engineering books show hexidecimal non-decimal digits as upper case only and NEVER as lower case. However, I could not find pages in them defining the lettered-digits as upper case only despite their consistent usage of upper case printing.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This errata is attempting to overturn the clear consensus of the WG.


Errata ID: 2872

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Richard J. Smith
Date Reported: 2011-07-28
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-06-01

Section 5 says:

   For these addresses, mixed notation is
   RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: the address can be
   distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
   solely from the address field through the use of a well-known prefix.

It should say:

   For these addresses, mixed notation is 
   RECOMMENDED if the following conditions are met: the address can be
   distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits 
   solely from the address field through the use of a well-known prefix, 
   and the entire address is not either the unspecified IPv6 address 
   "::" or the loopback IPv6 address "::1".

Notes:

RFC-4291 defines the 80-bit all-zeros prefix as indicating an "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address". Without further clarification in section 5 of RFC-5952, the recommended formatting of the IPv6 unspecified address would be "::0.0.0.0", and the recommended formatting of the IPv6 loopback address would be "::0.0.0.1". Neither of these recommended representations is desirable.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
::1 and :: are more specific and not part of the reserved block for IPv4 compatible addresses.


Errata ID: 3884

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Richard Hartmann
Date Reported: 2014-02-06
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2014-02-12

Section 4.2.2. says:

4.2.2.  Handling One 16-Bit 0 Field

   The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16-bit 0 field.
   For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
   2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.

It should say:

4.2.2.  Incorrect use of "::"

   The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16-bit 0 field.
   For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
   2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.

   The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used just so. For example, the
   representation 2001:db8:1:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
   2001:db8:1:1::1:1:1:1 is not correct.

Notes:

You would think this should be obvious, but I have seen actual discussions that 2001:db8:1:1::1:1:1:1 is correct syntax. Explicitly forbidding this form does no harm and stops all discussions in this direction.

Thanks for your work.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As agreed to by the document authors and the submitter, there is a reference to RFC 4291 that addresses the concern.


Report New Errata