RFC 5420, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", February 2009

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6510

Errata ID: 1689
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-02-20
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel

Section 11.3, pg.19 says:

a)
   The IANA has created a new registry and will manage the space of
|  attributes bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation:
            ^
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.

b)
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   - Bit number
   - Defining RFC
   - Name of bit
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Resv
   - Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes subobject

It should say:

a)
   The IANA has created a new registry and will manage the space of
   attribute bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation:
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.

b)
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:

   - Bit number
   - Defining RFC
   - Name of bit
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path message
|  - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Resv message
   - Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes subobject

Notes:

Rationale:

a) grammar fix in the body of RFC 5420 vs. RFC 4420
should also be reflected in the IANA Considerations
(and in the IANA registry -- subject to independent report to IANA);

b) language improvement applied in the body of the RFC
should also be reflected in the IANA Considerations.

Report New Errata