RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 1459, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", May 1993

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194

Source of RFC: Legacy
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 4854
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Chase Smith
Date Reported: 2016-11-04
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30

Section 6.2 says:

To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting
of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the
server back to the client.  If there is no channel
found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is
returned.  The exception to this is when a NAMES
message is sent with no parameters and all visible
channels and contents are sent back in a series of
RPL_NAMEREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark
the end.

It should say:

To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting
of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the
server back to the client.  If there is no channel
found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is
returned.  The exception to this is when a NAMES
message is sent with no parameters and all visible
channels and contents are sent back in a series of
RPL_NAMREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark
the end.

Notes:

RPL_NAMEREPLY does not exist anywhere else in the document, while RPL_NAMREPLY is used 4 times. This is likely a typo.

----- Verifier Notes -----
One of them is clearly a typo, but a little research shows that implementations differ as to which one they use. Best that this be revisited in the unlikely event that the spec is ever revised.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search