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

Errata ID: 8592
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: William Hawkins
Date Reported: 2025-10-04
Verifier Name: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Verified: 2025-10-07

Section 4.7 says:

A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Follow-Up Timestamp field.

It should say:

A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Timestamp field of the reflected STAMP
packet (Figure 2).

Notes:

Sorry for the back-to-back submissions -- I had these queued up and had delayed submission.

In an earlier version of the RFC, the sentence quoted in the Original Text read

"A Session-Reflector might be able to put in the Timestamp field only a "SW Local" (see Table 6) timestamp."

(see, inter alia, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-02#section-4.7)

I have confirmed with one of the draft's original authors that a simple copy editing error was the cause of this tiny mistake. The sentence at the beginning of section 4.7 is meant to refer to the Timestamp field in the STAMP packet transmitted by the Session Reflector.

The earlier draft of this RFC specified that what is currently named the Follow-Up Timestamp field should be named the Timestamp field. The name collision resulted in an overzealous search/replace hiccup. I hope that having the record reflect the correct field name will save future developers from having to scratch their head like I did.

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.

==Verifier note

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/_sK9708NnI79IRif4AFN8LmmkZs/

Report New Errata