RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 3414, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", December 2002
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5590
Source of RFC: snmpv3 (ops)
Errata ID: 278
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Piotr Bandur
Date Reported: 2003-10-28
Section 6.3.1 says:
4) Prepend K2 to the result of the step 4 and calculate MD5 digest over it according to [RFC1321]. Take the first 12 octets of the final digest - this is Message Authentication Code (MAC).
It should say:
4) Prepend K2 to the result of the step 3 and calculate MD5 digest over it according to [RFC1321]. Take the first 12 octets of the final digest - this is Message Authentication Code (MAC).
Notes:
In Section 7.3.1:
4) Prepend K2 to the result of the step 4 and calculate SHA digest
over it according to [SHA-NIST]. Take the first 12 octets of
the final digest - this is Message Authentication Code (MAC).
Should be:
4) Prepend K2 to the result of the step 3 and calculate SHA digest
over it according to [SHA-NIST]. Take the first 12 octets of
the final digest - this is Message Authentication Code (MAC).
Errata ID: 7797
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: 李骋昊
Date Reported: 2024-02-05
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-02-05
Section 1.3 says:
For these protocols, it not possible to obtain data integrity without data origin authentication, nor is it possible to obtain data origin authentication without data integrity. Further, there is no provision for data confidentiality without both data integrity and data origin authentication.
It should say:
For these protocols, it is not possible to obtain data integrity without data origin authentication, nor is it possible to obtain data origin authentication without data integrity. Further, there is no provision for data confidentiality without both data integrity and data origin authentication.
Notes:
The original text is incorrect in grammar.
missing "is":
it not > it is not
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 3414, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", December 2002
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5590
Source of RFC: snmpv3 (ops)
Errata ID: 3612
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yitzchak M. Gottlieb
Date Reported: 2013-05-03
Held for Document Update by: Benoit Claise
Section 2.5.2 says:
maxMessageSize The maximum message size as included in the message. The User-bas User-based Security module uses this value to calculate the maxSizeResponseScopedPDU.
It should say:
maxMessageSize The maximum message size as included in the message. The User-based Security module uses this value to calculate the maxSizeResponseScopedPDU.
Notes:
The words "User-based" were moved to the second line but not fully removed from the first.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 3414, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", December 2002
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5590
Source of RFC: snmpv3 (ops)
Errata ID: 5073
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fabio Costantini
Date Reported: 2017-07-26
Rejected by: Benoit Claise
Date Rejected: 2017-07-27
Section 1.5.1 says:
When an SNMP message contains a payload which expects a response (those messages that contain a Confirmed Class PDU [RFC3411]), then the receiver of such messages is authoritative. When an SNMP message contains a payload which does not expect a response (those messages that contain an Unconfirmed Class PDU [RFC3411]), then the sender of such a message is authoritative.
It should say:
When an SNMP message contains a payload which expects a response (those messages that contain a Confirmed Class PDU [RFC3411]), then the receiver of such messages is authoritative. When an SNMP message contains a payload which does not expect a response (those messages that contain an Unconfirmed Class PDU [RFC3411]), then the sender of such a message is non-authoritative.
Notes:
In both cases the receiver was classified as "authoritative".
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The initial text says it correctly: the sender of such a message is authoritative