errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC6214, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", April 2011


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: Rejected (1)

RFC6214, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", April 2011


Errata ID: 2854

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: St├ęphane 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