RFC 793, "Transmission Control Protocol", September 1981

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 9293

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 1122, RFC 3168, RFC 6093, RFC 6528

Errata ID: 1570
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Constantin Hagemeier
Date Reported: 2008-10-11
Rejected by: Wesley Eddy
Date Rejected: 2012-05-29

Section 2.7 says:

There are two principal cases for matching the sockets in the local
passive OPENs and an foreign active OPENs.  In the first case, the
local passive OPENs has fully specified the foreign socket.  In this
case, the match must be exact.  In the second case, the local passive
OPENs has left the foreign socket unspecified.  In this case, any
foreign socket is acceptable as long as the local sockets match.

It should say:

There are two principal cases for matching the sockets in the local
passive OPENs and a foreign active OPEN.  In the first case, there
is exactly one local passive OPEN with matching local socket that
has fully specified the foreign socket.  In this case, the match must
be exact.  In the second case, there is exactly one local passive
OPEN with matching local socket that has left the foreign socket
unspecified.  In this case, any foreign socket is acceptable.

Notes:

In this passage singular or plural make a big difference.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As discussed on the TCPM Working Group mailing list in 2012:

We believe that the original text is not confusing and a change of the meaning is not required.

Report New Errata