Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4919, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", August 2007

Errata ID: 1789
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeffrey Wildman
Date Reported: 2009-06-01
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-10

Section 5. Goals says:

   1.  Fragmentation and Reassembly layer: As mentioned in the overview,
       the protocol data units may be as small as 81 bytes.  This is
       obviously far below the minimum IPv6 packet size of 1280 octets,
       and in keeping with Section 5 of the IPv6 specification
       [RFC2460], a fragmentation and reassembly adaptation layer must
       be provided at the layer below IP.

It should say:

   1.  Fragmentation and Reassembly layer: As mentioned in the overview,
       the payload of medium access layer frames may be capped in size (as small 
       as 81 bytes).  This is obviously far below the minimum IPv6 Maximum 
       Transmission Unit (MTU) size of 1280 octets, and in keeping with Section 5 
       of the IPv6 specification [RFC2460], a fragmentation and reassembly 
       adaptation layer must be provided at the layer below IP.

Notes:

Changed 'protocol data units' to 'medium access layer frames' for clarity.

Changed 'may be as small as 81 bytes' to 'may be capped in size (as small as 81 bytes)'. We are highlighting the fact that link layer payloads can't exceed some size X, while we are also expecting IPv6 packets much larger than X bytes to be pushed down to the link layer. (Hence the requirement for fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms at the link layer.)

'minimum IPv6 packet size of 1280 octets' changed to 'minimum IPv6 MTU size of 1280 octets'. In the IPv6 specification [RFC 2460], Section 5 'Packet Size Issues' says that the minimum allowable IPv6 MTU is 1280 octets. This is not equivalent to saying that the minimum IPv6 packet size is 1280 bytes (as suggested in the original text in RFC 4919).

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4919, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", August 2007

Errata ID: 1032
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

(1)  Section 1 -- minor textual flaw

The second paragraph of Section 1, on page 2 of RFC 4919, says:

   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they
   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes
|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and the above, and
   spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.  [...]

Perhaps, it should better say:

   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they
   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes
|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and the layers
   above, and spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.
   [...]

or shorter:

   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they
   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes
|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and above, and
   spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.  [...]


(2)  Section 2 -- minor indentation flaw

Near the top of page 3, Section 2 of RFC 4919 contains the numbered
bullet:

       v
|  7.  Large number of devices expected to be deployed during the
        lifetime of the technology.  This number is expected to dwarf
        the number of deployed personal computers, for example.

This should perhaps better have been formatted as:

       vv
|  7.   Large number of devices expected to be deployed during the
        lifetime of the technology.  This number is expected to dwarf
        the number of deployed personal computers, for example.


(3)  Sections 5 and 8.2 -- misleading reference tag

Apparently during a last minute change before publication, an attempt
has been made to update the references to the most current versions
available, and that has resulted in the misfortunate introduction
into the text (Section 5, first line on page 8, and Section 8.2,
second entry), of the improper and misleading reference tag,
'[6LoWPAN]', in place of an appropriate and mnemonic reference tag
like '[RFC2462bis]' for to-be-RFC4862.


(4)  Section 8.2 -- wrong Informative Reference given

The RFC text in Section 5 (bullet 5. on page 8) makes reference to
the SNMPv3 umbrella document, RFC 3410, using the tag '[RFC3410]'.

But in place of the proper citation of RFC 3410, Section 8.2
contains an unexpected quotation to RFC 3411, tagged '[RFC3411]';
the latter tag does not appear anywhere else in the RFC text.

Therefore, the entry [RFC3411] should have been replaced by an
entry [RFC3410] !

Report New Errata