RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 6214, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", April 2011


Errata ID: 4323
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Joe Klein
Date Reported: 2015-04-01
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2015-06-30

Section 8. Security says:


New Physical and Link layer problem have been discovered and should be addressed in this RFC, and they are:
1. Avian IP carriers are competing for air space with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), and as such have a higher probability of packet collision at Layer 1 has increase in retransmissions.
2. On path Avian IP carrier dropouts, caused by draughts, may also lead to a connection loss, and increase in retransmission.

Errata ID: 3566
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Dale Worley
Date Reported: 2013-03-26
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2013-05-27

Section Metadata says:

RFC 6214 updates RFC 1149, in a similar way to RFC 2549 updating 
RFC 1149.  But there is no metadata in RFC 6214 stating that it 
updates RFC 1149.

It should say:

"Updates: 1149"


I discovered this defect while trying to find what was described to me as "the IPv6 update to 'avian carriers'". So actual people are inconvenienced by this defect.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 6214, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", April 2011


Errata ID: 4668
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: YC Lee
Date Reported: 2016-04-14
Held for Document Update by: Nevil Brownlee
Date Held: 2016-04-28

Section 8 says:


In some countries you are be required to obtain a proper license from authorities to keep some kind of birds. It should be addressed in RFC.

Example: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/publications/publications_press/pr1037.html
"Unauthorised keeping of five kinds of poultry -chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons and quails – is an offence..."

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 6214, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", April 2011


Errata ID: 2854
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
Date Reported: 2011-07-06
Rejected by: Nevil Brownlee
Date Rejected: 2013-05-27

Section 3.2 says:

The whole section about the frame format and the lack of 
Layer2-type, and the technical choice behind it.

It should say:

RFC 6274, section 3.1 explicitely forbids this technique and 
requires that an IP implementation checks the version number, 
which will prevent RFC 6214 to work.


Yes, I know that this RFC was published on April 1st... Nevertheless, this is an interesting technical point.

RFC 6274 was published in July 2011, three months after RFC 6214.
Further, RFC 6274 is only Informational. The recommendation that you
mention asserts that "in practice different versions of IP are
identified by a different Protocol Type (e.g., EtherType in the case
of Ethernet) number in the link-layer protocol header." That assertion
is untrue of conforming implementations of RFC 6214, which, apparently,
the authors of RFC 6274 failed to consider.

Report New Errata