RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 4364, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", February 2006

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 4577, RFC 4684, RFC 5462

Source of RFC: l3vpn (int)

Errata ID: 7180
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Angély
Date Reported: 2022-10-24
Held for Document Update by: John Scudder
Date Held: 2024-01-12

Section 4.3.4 says:

   Note that this VPN architecture does not require the capability to
   distribute unlabeled VPN-IPv4 addresses.

It should say:

   Note that this VPN architecture does not require the capability to
   distribute unlabeled IPv4 addresses.


From my understanding, VPN-IPv4 addresses are necessarily labeled, but IPv4 adresses are not indeed. Section 10 seems to confirm the error by using the correct term: "distribute unlabeled IPv4 addresses to each other."

Additional note from verifier: this was reported as technical, but I have changed it to editorial following the guidelines in https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ (“Technical errata are expected to be things that would likely cause significant misunderstandings of the technical specification and might result in faulty implementations if they are not corrected. Editorial errata are, as the name implies, editorial - for example, typos, missing commas, etc. Errors in examples will generally be editorial…”) Since the text in question is a “note that” I take the view that it’s similar in character to an example. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s likely the error would result in faulty implementations. Finally, the uncorrected text, while kind of silly, isn’t strictly speaking untrue, so I have chosen “hold for document update“ rather than “verified”.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search