RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4668, "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (sec)

Errata ID: 29
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Verifier Name: Dan Romascanu
Date Verified: 2009-09-03

Section 7 says: 

[[Around the page break from page 8 to page 9, and once more,
near the top of page 14]]

   --
   -- AccessRequests + PendingRequests + ClientTimeouts =
   -- Successfully received
   --

It should say:

   --
   -- AccessRequests - PendingRequests - ClientTimeouts =
   -- Successfully received
   --

Notes:

I strongly suspect that this is wrong (-- and it does not either
match the presentation style of the formulae above in the text).
Conceptually, it makes no sense to count 'PendingRequests' and
'ClientTimeouts' as 'Successfully received', and the subsequent
DESCRIPTION clauses strongly support my suspicion that both
instances of this formula in fact be as above.

from pending

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 4668, "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (sec)

Errata ID: 867
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu

 

misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms
(for RFCs 4668 - 4671)

IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading.
In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover
IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific!
Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6".

Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here.
As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and
re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard
Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single
Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules".
Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the
proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the
rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".

Notes:

from pending

Errata ID: 884
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu

Section 7 says: 

hundredths of a second

It should say:

centiseconds

Notes:

Why not use the common ISO-standard unit-multiple name, "centiseconds" (abbreviation: "cs"), instead of the long-winded "hundredths of a second" ?

This applies to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
- radiusAuthClientRoundTripTime (RFC 4668, page 8),
- radiusAuthClientExtRoundTripTime (RFC 4668, page 13)

from pending

Report New Errata



Advanced Search