RFC 4379, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", February 2006

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8029

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5462, RFC 6424, RFC 6425, RFC 6426, RFC 6829, RFC 7506, RFC 7537, RFC 7743

Errata ID: 742
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2010-01-02

(1) [[posted separately.]]

(2)  Section 3.3.1 -- formating error

The second encoding diagram on page 27,

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0
   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1
   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1
   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

should say:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


(3)  Section 4.4 -- word omission

On page 35, the RFC text contains the bullet:

   Best-return-code:  contains the return code for the echo reply packet
                      as currently best known.  As algorithm progresses,
                      this code may change depending on the results of
                      further checks that it performs.

It should say:

   Best-return-code:  contains the return code for the echo reply packet
|                     as currently best known.  As the algorithm
                      progresses, this code may change depending on the
                      results of further checks that it performs.


(4)  Section 4.4 -- word omission in pseudo-code comment

On page 38, within the pseudocode comment, the RFC says:

         [...]
         may be greater than Label-stack-depth.  To be consistent with
         the above stack-depths, the bottom is considered to entry 1.
         */

It should say:

         [...]
         may be greater than Label-stack-depth.  To be consistent with
|        the above stack-depths, the bottom is considered to be entry 1.
         */


(5)  Section 4.4 -- wrong internal section reference

The last paragraph of section 4.4 (Step 7.), on page 40, says:

      Send an MPLS echo reply with a Return Code of Best-return-code,
      and a Return Subcode of Best-rtn-subcode.  Include any TLVs
      created during the above process.  The procedures for sending
|     the echo reply are found in subsection 4.4.1.
                                             ^^^^^
It should say:

      Send an MPLS echo reply with a Return Code of Best-return-code,
      and a Return Subcode of Best-rtn-subcode.  Include any TLVs
      created during the above process.  The procedures for sending
|     the echo reply are found in subsection 4.5.


(6)  Section 5.1 -- outdated Normative Reference

On page 43, the tag  [NTP]  points to RFC 2030.
At the time of publication of RFC 4377, RFC 2030 already had been
obsoleted by RFC 4330.
Therefore, the text after  [NTP]  should be replaced by the
rfc-ref.txt entry for RFC 4330.


(7)  Section 6 -- typo

At the end of the second paragraph on page 4, the RFC says:

                                    [...].  However, to provide a
   stronger defense, an implementation MAY also validate the TimeStamp
|  Sent by requiring and exact match on this field.
                       ^

It should say:

                                    [...].  However, to provide a
   stronger defense, an implementation MAY also validate the TimeStamp
|  Sent by requiring an exact match on this field.

Notes:

from pending

Report New Errata