RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 2626, "The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)", June 1999
Source of RFC: 2000 (ops)
Errata ID: 2753
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-03-25
Verifier Name: Ron Bonica
Date Verified: 2011-03-26
Section 3.6 says:
3.6 "Network News" There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News Message Format, RFC 10336. They both specify two-digit year format. A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work items.
It should say:
3.6 "Network News" There does exist a problem in both NNTP, RFC 977, and the Usenet News Message Format, RFC 1036. They both specify two-digit year format. A working group has been formed to update the network news protocols in general, and addressing this problem is on their list of work items.
Notes:
s/RFC 10336/RFC 1036
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 2626, "The Internet and the Millennium Problem (Year 2000)", June 1999
Source of RFC: 2000 (ops)
Errata ID: 2754
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-03-25
Held for Document Update by: Ron Bonica
Section 2; 5.1; 6 says:
{1 - Section 2}
[...] It should also be noted that the research was performd on RFCs 1
through 2128. At that time the IESG was charted with not allowing [...]
{2 - Section 5.1}
5.1 Fixed Solution
A number of organizations and groups have suggested a fixed solution
to the problem of two digit years. Given a two-digit year YY, if YY
is greater than or equal to 50, the year shall be interpreted as
19YY; and where YY is less than 50, the year shall be intrepreted as
20YY.
{3 - Section 6}
6. Methodology
The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups
rather than the strict numeric publishing order. Sixteen specific
areas were identified. They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory
Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services &
File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail",
"NTP", Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time
Services", "Routing", "Security", "Virtual Terminal", and "Other".
In addition to these categories, many hundreds of RFC's were
immediately eliminated based on content. That is not to say that all
Informational RFC's were not considered, many did contain some
technical content or overview whichdemanded scrutiny.
It should say:
{1 - Section 2}
[...] It should also be noted that the research was performed on RFCs 1
through 2128. At that time the IESG was charted with not allowing [...]
{2 - Section 5.1}
5.1 Fixed Solution
A number of organizations and groups have suggested a fixed solution
to the problem of two digit years. Given a two-digit year YY, if YY
is greater than or equal to 50, the year shall be interpreted as
19YY; and where YY is less than 50, the year shall be interpreted as
20YY.
{3 - Section 6}
6. Methodology
The first task was dividing the types of RFC's into logical groups
rather than the strict numeric publishing order. Sixteen specific
areas were identified. They are: "Autoconfiguration" , "Directory
Services", "Disk Sharing", "Games and Chat" ,"Information Services &
File Transfer", "Network & Transport Layer", "Electronic Mail",
"NTP", Name Serving", "Network Management", "News", "Real Time
Services", "Routing", "Security", "Virtual Terminal", and "Other".
In addition to these categories, many hundreds of RFC's were
immediately eliminated based on content. That is not to say that all
Informational RFC's were not considered, many did contain some
technical content or overview which demanded scrutiny.
Notes:
{1} A typo in "performed".
{2} A typo in "interpreted".
{3} A typo in "which demanded".
Errata ID: 2755
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-03-25
Held for Document Update by: Ron Bonica
Section 12.1; 12.2 says:
{1 - Section 12.1}
12.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Internet
Protocol (IP) versions four and six, the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) and its extensions, Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMP), the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) and Remote Procedure
Call (RPC) protocol. A variety of less known protocols were also
examined.
After careful review of the nearly 400 RFC's in this catagory, no
millennium or year 2000 problems were found.
{2 - Section 12.2}
[...]
RFC 2097 on the PPP NetBIOS Frame Control Protocol discuesses several
timer and timeouts in Section 2.1, none of which suffers from a year
2000 problem.
[...]
RFC 791 on the Internet Protocol defines a packet type 68 which is an
Internet Timestamp, which defines a 32-bit field which contains the
number of milliseconds since midnght UT.
It should say:
{1 - Section 12.1}
12.1 Summary
The RFC's which were categorized into this group were the Internet
Protocol (IP) versions four and six, the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP), the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) and its extensions, Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMP), the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) and Remote Procedure
Call (RPC) protocol. A variety of less known protocols were also
examined.
After careful review of the nearly 400 RFC's in this category, no
millennium or year 2000 problems were found.
{2 - Section 12.2}
[...]
RFC 2097 on the PPP NetBIOS Frame Control Protocol discusses several
timer and timeouts in Section 2.1, none of which suffers from a year
2000 problem.
[...]
RFC 791 on the Internet Protocol defines a packet type 68 which is an
Internet Timestamp, which defines a 32-bit field which contains the
number of milliseconds since midnight UT.
Notes:
{1} A typo in "category".
{2} 1) A typo in "discusses";
2) A typo in "midnight".