errata logo graphic

Found 6 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 3944

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11

Section 5.1 says:

      ODUk.ts       Minimum          Nominal          Maximum
      -----------------------------------------------------------
      ODU2.ts    1,249,384.632    1,249,409.620     1,249,434.608
      ODU3.ts    1,254,678.635    1,254,703.729     1,254,728.823
      ODU4.ts    1,301,683.217    1,301,709.251     1,301,735.285

              Table 1: Actual TS Bit Rate of ODUk (in Kbps)

It should say:

      ODTUk.ts       Minimum          Nominal           Maximum
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      ODTU2.ts    1,249,384.632    1,249,409.620     1,249,434.608
      ODTU3.ts    1,254,678.635    1,254,703.729     1,254,728.823
      ODTU4.ts    1,301,683.217    1,301,709.251     1,301,735.285

              Table 1: Actual TS Bit Rate of ODUk (in Kbps)


Errata ID: 3945

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11

Section 7 says:

For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style SHOULD also be
sent for decreasing the ODUflex bandwidth.

It should say:

For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style MUST also be
sent for decreasing the ODUflex bandwidth.

Notes:

Section 7 requires that Shared Explicit (SE) MUST be used at the beginning when creating a resizable ODUflex connection. Thus, the SE style MUST also be used when signaling for bandwidth increase or decrease. The increase procedure mandates the use of SE style; however, the decrease procedure uses SHOULD. The decrease procedure should also make the SE signaling mandatory.

This change, that looks to be a change of substance, has been verified with the authors to be an editorial issue that was caused by not keeping the paragraphs in synch.


Errata ID: 3946

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11

Section 7 says:

After decreasing the bandwidth, the ingress node
SHOULD send a ResvErr message to tear down the old control state.

It should say:

After decreasing the bandwidth, the ingress node
SHOULD send a PathTear message to tear down the old control state.

Notes:

PathTear is the usual mechanism to teardown old control state. This is would also make the bandwidth decreasing procedure consistent with the bandwidth increasing procedure (bandwidth increasing procedure uses PathTear to teardown old control state.)

This change looks like a change of substance, but the authors confirm that their intent was to use the same process for both the increase and decrease in bandwidth.


Errata ID: 3928

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Adrian Farrel
Date Reported: 2014-03-22
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-03-22

Section 11 says:

      6        Och at 2.5 Gbps                       [RFC4328]

It should say:

      6        OCh at 2.5 Gbps                       [RFC4328]

Notes:

Trivial capitalization issue that is reflected in the IANA registry and could be tidied up as the registry action is still in the process of being completed.


Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 3930

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Adrian Farrel
Date Reported: 2014-03-23
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2014-03-24

Section 3 says:

   [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
   for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.  However, [RFC7096]
   does not provide the means to signal all the new Signal Types and
   related mapping and multiplexing functionalities.  Moreover, it
   supports only the deprecated auto-MSI (Multiframe Structure
   Identifier) mode, which assumes that the Tributary Port Number (TPN)
   is automatically assigned in the transmit direction and not checked
   in the receive direction.

It should say:

   [RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control
   for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.  However, as 
   described in[RFC7096], that document does not provide the means to
   signal all the new Signal Types and related mapping and multiplexing
   functionalities.  Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-MSI
   (Multiframe Structure Identifier) mode, which assumes that the 
   Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit
   direction and not checked in the receive direction.

Notes:

RFC 7096 is the analysis of pre-existing GMPLS signalling. It does not contain any protocol extensions itself, but looks at the mechanisms provided in RFC 4328.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 3924

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Fatai Zhang
Date Reported: 2014-03-20
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2014-03-24

Section 11 says:

5        Unassigned                            [RFC4328]

It should say:

5       Reserved (for G.709)                  [RFC7139]

Notes:

(1)Unassigned->Reserved (for G.709)
(2)[RFC4328]->[RFC7139]
--VERIFIER NOTES--
After discussion with the raiser of this report who was also the lead editor on the document, and also with one of the CCAMP chairs, the conclusion is that the text in Section 11 is correct. I will contact IANA to get the registry updated.


Report New Errata