RFC 8972, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions", January 2021

Errata ID: 8591
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: William Hawkins
Date Reported: 2025-10-03
Verifier Name: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Verified: 2025-10-07

Section 4.3 says:

Timestamp In:  A one-octet field that characterizes the method by
   which the ingress of the Session-Reflector obtained the timestamp
   T2.  A timestamp may be obtained with hardware assistance via a
   software API from a local wall clock or from a remote clock (the
   latter is referred to as a "control plane").  Table 9 lists the
   possible values.

Sync Src Out:  A one-octet field that characterizes the source of
   clock synchronization at the egress of the Session-Reflector.
   Table 7 lists the possible values.

Timestamp Out:  A one-octet field that characterizes the method by
   which the egress of the Session-Reflector obtained the timestamp
   T3.  Table 9 lists the possible values.

It should say:

Timestamp In:  A one-octet field that characterizes the method by
   which timestamps are obtained at the ingress of the 
   Session-Reflector.
   A timestamp may be obtained with hardware assistance via a
   software API from a local wall clock or from a remote clock (the
   latter is referred to as a "control plane").  Table 9 lists the
   possible values.

Sync Src Out:  A one-octet field that characterizes the source of
   clock synchronization at the egress of the Session-Reflector.
   Table 7 lists the possible values.

Timestamp Out:  A one-octet field that characterizes the method by
   which timestamps are obtained at the egress of
   the Session-Reflector. Table 9 lists the possible values.

Notes:

First, and as usual, I sincerely appreciate the technical accuracy of the authors of the STAMP-related RFCs. As an implementer, the writing and specificity make it easy to build compliant software. I hope that this errata report is helpful for future implementers.

Second, I apologize for not knowing the best way to refer to two, non contiguous phrases from the same section that both require changes. I hope that what I have included makes it obvious what needs to be changed.

I have conferred with one of the RFC's authors who indicated that the inclusion of T2 and T3 were simply the result of an error in drafting. We collaborated via email to arrive at the corrected text I have submitted here. I say that only to indicate that I have attempted to do enough research prior to submitting this report so that it is not a waste of time but _not_ to imply that the person with whom I communicated endorses this report.

Thank you again for your work!
Will

==Verifier Note

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/t4-ZrPhTKo6JCaApOTfBJUA-w9s/

Report New Errata