RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 4360, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7153, RFC 7606
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 1632
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yakov Rekhter
Date Reported: 2008-12-12
Verifier Name: Stewart Bryant
Date Verified: 2012-02-20
Section 7 says:
This document defines a class of extended communities called IPv4
address specific extended community for which the IANA is to create
and maintain a registry entitled "IPv4 Address Specific Extended
Community". All the communities in this class are of extended Types.
Future assignment are to be made using the "First Come First Served"
policy defined in [RFC2434]. The Type values for the transitive
communities of the two-octet AS specific extended community class
are 0x0100-0x01ff, and for the non-transitive communities of that
class are 0x4100-0x41ff. Assignments consist of a name and the
value.
It should say:
This document defines a class of extended communities called IPv4
address specific extended community for which the IANA is to create
and maintain a registry entitled "IPv4 Address Specific Extended
Community". All the communities in this class are of extended Types.
Future assignment are to be made using the "First Come First Served"
policy defined in [RFC2434]. The Type values for the transitive
communities of the IPv4 Address specific extended community class
are 0x0100-0x01ff, and for the non-transitive communities of that
class are 0x4100-0x41ff. Assignments consist of a name and the
value.
Errata ID: 1917
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yakov Rekhter
Date Reported: 2009-10-19
Verifier Name: Ross Callon
Date Verified: 2009-10-19
Section 6 says:
If a route has a non-transitivity extended community,
It should say:
If a route has a non-transitive extended community,
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 4360, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7153, RFC 7606
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 715
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-02-27
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2013-09-19
Section 3.1. defines the Extended Community extended type classes 0x00ss and 0x40ss, as does Section 3.2. for the type classes 0x01ss and 0x41ss, and Section 3.3. for the type classes 0x03ss and 0x43ss (where 'ss' is the Sub-Type). These classes are also covered by the IANA Considerations section. Section 4. and Section 5. of RFC 4360 both define extended types where "the value of the high-order octet of the Type field ... can be 0x00, 0x01, or 0x02". There is no formal definition for the latter case, Type = 0x02ss, in the whole RFC, and the subtypes 0x0202 and 0x0203 are not covered by the IANA considerations section. >From text in Section 4. and 5., it can be concluded, that perhaps the layout from Section 3.1. should be applicable in this case as well, but that's all I could find! Was type 0x02ss deprecated during the evolution of the draft, or has the definition of that extended type been ommitted accidentially from the RFC ?
It should say:
[see above]
Notes:
This was addressed by RFC5668.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 4360, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7153, RFC 7606
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 4944
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yang Yu
Date Reported: 2017-02-21
Rejected by: Alvaro Retana
Date Rejected: 2017-02-23
Throughout the document, when it says:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type high | Type low(*) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|T| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 or 0x40 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x01 or 0x41 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x03 or 0x43 | Sub-Type | Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type high | Type low(*) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|T| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x00 or 0x40 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x01 or 0x41 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Administrator (cont.) | Local Administrator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x03 or 0x43 | Sub-Type | Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
The packet format convention used in this RFC is different from how it is commonly used.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
While the format used may not be the "common" one, the representation is clear and there's no need for this errata.