RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (4)
RFC 4866, "Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6", May 2007
Source of RFC: mipshop (int)
Errata ID: 601
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-14
Verifier Name: Christian Vogt
Date Verified: 2007-06-25
Section 4.2 says:
If the Binding Update message is authenticated based on the CGA property of the mobile node's home address or by a proof of the mobile node's knowledge of a permanent home keygen token, the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the maximum of ^^^^^^^ MAX_CGA_BINDING_LIFETIME and the value specified in the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.
It should say:
If the Binding Update message is authenticated based on the CGA property of the mobile node's home address or by a proof of the mobile node's knowledge of a permanent home keygen token, the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the minimum of ^^^^^^^ MAX_CGA_BINDING_LIFETIME and the value specified in the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.
Notes:
Page 21, 1st paragraph
Errata ID: 602
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-14
Verifier Name: Christian Vogt
Date Verified: 2007-06-25
Section 4.2 says:
If the Binding Update message is authenticated through a proof of the mobile node's reachability at the home address, then the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the maximum of MAX_RR_BINDING_LIFETIME [1] and the value specified in ^^^^^^^ the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.
It should say:
If the Binding Update message is authenticated through a proof of the mobile node's reachability at the home address, then the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the minimum of MAX_RR_BINDING_LIFETIME [1] and the value specified in ^^^^^^^ the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.
Notes:
Page 21, 1st paragraph
Errata ID: 4
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-14
Verifier Name: Christian Vogt
Date Verified: 2007-06-25
Section 6.2 says:
Enhanced Router Optimization does not make assumptions on the relationship ^^^^^^ between mobile and correspondent nodes.
It should say:
Enhanced Route Optimization does not make assumptions on the relationship ^^^^^ between mobile and correspondent nodes.
Notes:
Page 43, 1st paragraph
Errata ID: 603
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-14
Verifier Name: Christian Vogt
Date Verified: 2007-06-25
Section 4.2 says:
The correspondent node may in either case grant a further reduced lifetime, but it MUST ^^^ NOT accept a higher lifetime.
It should say:
The correspondent node MAY in either case grant a further reduced lifetime, but it MUST ^^^ NOT accept a higher lifetime.
Notes:
Page 21, 1st paragraph