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".