RFC Errata
RFC 4447, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", April 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8077
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6723, RFC 6870, RFC 7358
Source of RFC: pwe3 (int)
Errata ID: 3115
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07
Section 5.1 says:
(page 8, the first 2 tables) This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP: TLV Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== PW Status TLV 5.4.2 Notification PW Interface Parameters TLV 5.3.2.1 FEC PW Grouping ID TLV 5.3.2.2 FEC Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined: FEC Element Type Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== 0x80 5.2 FEC 0x81 5.3 FEC
It should say:
This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP: TLV Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== PW Status TLV 5.4.2 Notification | PW Interface Parameters TLV 5.3.2.1 with FEC TLV | PW Grouping ID TLV 5.3.2.2 with FEC TLV Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined: | FEC Element Type FEC Element Name Specified in Section =================================================================== | 0x80 PWid 5.2 | 0x81 Generalized PWid 5.3
Notes:
wrong term(s) used in table(s).
Apparently, "FEC" is not appropriate in the last column of the first
table, and "Defined for Message" makes no sense in the second table,
where only "FEC" appears, as "FEC" is not an LDP message, it is a TLV.
Perhaps, the latter column is dispensable, in favor of a new column
showing the name of the FEC element.
-- VERIFIER NOTES --
The editors should look at this if there is an update.
The table is a quick index to information about a specific FEC and likely will be removed in a future version of this RFC.