RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 4606, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", August 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6344
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 2804
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-01
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2012-04-03
(2) typo
In Section 3, at the bottom of page 11, the RFC says:
[...]. The standard definition for virtual
concatenation allows each virtual concatenation components to travel
over diverse paths. [...]
^
It should say:
[...]. The standard definition for virtual
| concatenation allows each virtual concatenation component to travel
over diverse paths. [...]
or perhaps better:
[...]. The standard definition for virtual
| concatenation allows the virtual concatenation components to travel
over diverse paths. [...]
(4) inconsistency in examples
Still within Section 3, in the lower half of page 15,
under the headline:
Examples of Labels
there are multiple occurrances of an index shift that makes the text
inconsistent with the tables on page 14 and the upper half of page 15.
E.g., "Kth-1" for "K>0" would result in "0th, 1st, 2nd" where the
appropriate table (at tho bottom of page 14) gives "1st, 2nd, 3rd" :
K SDH VC-4
---------------
0 other
1 1st TUG-3
2 2nd TUG-3
3 3rd TUG-3
Hence,
a)
vv
| Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within
the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.
should be corrected to say:
| Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth TUG-3 within the
VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.
b)
vv
| Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
should be corrected to say:
| Example 3: the label for the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.
c)
vv
| Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2
| in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1
^^
is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.
should be corrected to say:
| Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth VT Group/TUG-2
| in the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1
is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.
and
d)
vv
| Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT
| Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the
^^
Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.
should be corrected to say:
| Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth VT
| Group/TUG-2 within the Uth STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the
Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.
(5) incomplete example
In Annex 1, at the bottom of page 21, the last list item says:
10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
components), MT with value 1, and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
Elementary Signal.
This text does not specify the significant NCC value.
It should say instead:
10. An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
| value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual
concatenation of 3 components), MT with value 1, and T with
value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.
Notes:
This Erratum was duplicated from Erratum 43 in order to separate the issues raised. Note that the remaining issues in this Erratum are typos or within examples, hence the Erratum is reclassified as Editorial.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 4606, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", August 2006
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6344
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 43
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-01
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2011-05-08
(1) use of "N"
In Section 2.1 of RFC 4606, on page 6, the explanations for
the NCC field contain the Note:
Note 2: When a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal is requested that is
limited to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1, NCC set to 1.
Such text (and similar) contains an unfortunate mess-up of two
distinct uses of "N", with different range of admissible values
for STS-N and STM-N.
This becomes particularly confusing in phrases like
"a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc".
I strongly recommend to avoid this overloaded use of "N"
in a single context.
Using "M" for one of these two "N"s instead, i.e. talking
about "STS-M/STM-N", or talking about "STS-<3*N>/STM-N" or
even "STS-3N/STM-N", would remove the ambiguity and add to
the clarity of the text.
(3) continuation of (1)
Within section 3, the numbered rules on mid-page 13 would also
benefit from application of the arguments given in item (1) above:
1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N
(N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and
STM-0.
should better be specified as:
1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
| STS-3N/STM-N multiplex.
| S is only significant for SONET STS-3N and SDH STM-N (N>0).
S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.
and
2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and SDH
STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.
should better be specified as:
2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
STS-3/AUG-1.
| U is only significant for SONET STS-3N and SDH STM-N (N>0).
U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.
Notes:
Erratum 43 has been duplicated to allow separate treatment of the different elements reported. This copy is used to address the rejected parts. The rest of the Erratum is now 2804.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Points 1) and 3) are rejected. Although the repeated use of "N" could lead a reader to be confused, this is common usage amongst writers on TDM, and the readership within CCAMP has so far been unconfused.