RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5240, "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Bootstrap Router MIB", June 2008

Source of RFC: pim (rtg)

Errata ID: 1441
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-06-12
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel

Throughout the document, when it says:

a) In section 1 (2nd paragraph on pg. 2) :

   This document was created by moving some of the PIM BSR-specific MIB
|  tables from one of the earlier versions of PIM MIB [RFC5060].
                                                          ^^^^

b) 1st paragraph of Section 8  (on page 19) :

   This MIB module is based on the original work in [RFC5060] by R.
   Sivaramu, J. Lingard, and B. Joshi.

It should say:

a) In section 1 (2nd paragraph on pg. 2) :

   This document was created by moving some of the PIM BSR-specific MIB
|  tables from one of the earlier versions of the PIM MIB [RFC2934].
|  Together with RFC 5060 [RFC5060], this document obsoletes RFC 2934.

b) 1st paragraph of Section 8

   This MIB module is based on the original work in [RFC2934] by K.
   McCloghrie, D. Farinacci, D. Thaler, and B. Fenner.


Notes:

As explained in the body of RFC 5060, the material from RFC 2934
has been upgraded and split into two documents, RFC 5060, and now
RFC 5240 for the PIM-BSR functionality, in the same way as the
PIM-BSR protocol description has been separated from the basic
PIM protocol desciption.

Unfortunately, RFC 5240 does not restate these circumstances,
and this omission apparently has lead to an improper reference
update during the final publication process for RFC 5240,
erroneously replacing the references to RFC 2934 by RFC 5060.

The front matter of RFC 5060 and RFC 5240 should better say:
Obsoletes: 2934
and the text in the Introduction of RFC 5240 should contain
the details as proposed in the Corrected Text.

Accordingly, the *Normative* Reference [RFC5060] ought to be demoted
to Informative, and an additional Informative Reference to RFC 2934,
with tag [RFC2934], should have been added to Section 9.2.

I suggest that, to clarify the circumstances, the RFC index metadata
should be updated by adding the relations
2934 Obsoleted by 5060
and 2924 Obsoleted by 5240
and the 'inverse' (Obsoletes) relations.

Report New Errata