RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", February 2006

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5952, RFC 6052, RFC 7136, RFC 7346, RFC 7371, RFC 8064

Errata ID: 2702
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Bassam Al-Khaffaf
Date Reported: 2011-02-01
Rejected by: Ralph Droms
Date Rejected: 2012-03-26

Section 2.3 says:

For example, the following are legal representations of the 60-bit
prefix 20010DB80000CD3 (hexadecimal):

   2001:0DB8:0000:CD30:0000:0000:0000:0000/60
   2001:0DB8::CD30:0:0:0:0/60
   2001:0DB8:0000:CD30::/60

It should say:

For example, the following are legal representations of the 60-bit
prefix 20010DB80000CD3 (hexadecimal):

   2001:0DB8:0000:CD30:0000:0000:0000:0000/60
   2001:0DB8:0000:CD30::/60

Notes:

According to the erratum reported on 2010-08-16 by Michael Rushton, the second text representation address of the example will be no more valid and should be taken away and keep the first and third ones.
This is because the use of "::" indicates two or more groups of 16 bits of zeros. Thank you
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Related to Bob Hinden's review of errata 2466:

I believe that this errata should be rejected. This was discussed on the v6ops mailing list around February 25, 2011. I responded:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg07741.html

The thread starts at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg07722.html

Also, two errata were filed based on this one (Errata ID: 2735, Errata ID: 2702) that I think should also be rejected as they assume that this errata was correct.

Report New Errata