Found 3 records.
Errata ID: 3566
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:
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.
Errata ID: 4323
Reported By: Joe Klein
Date Reported: 2015-04-01
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 droughts, may also lead to a connection loss, and increase in retransmission.
Errata ID: 2854
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