RFC Errata
Found 5 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 5245, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", April 2010
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6336
Source of RFC: mmusic (rai)
Errata ID: 2338
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Reif, Frank
Date Reported: 2010-07-20
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2011-02-07
Section 15.1 says:
extension-att-name = byte-string ;from RFC 4566
It should say:
extension-att-name = token ;from RFC 4566
Notes:
"extension-att-name" may contain the SP (0x20) as defined for "byte-string" in RFC 4566.
The 'SP' character cannot be allowed within "extension-att-name" as it is also used as delimiter between "extension-att-name" and "extension-att-value".
Errata ID: 3149
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Marc Petit-huguenin
Date Reported: 2012-03-07
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2012-04-13
Section 21.1.4 says:
Type of Attribute: session-level
It should say:
Type of Attribute: media-level
Notes:
Section 15.3 clearly says that "ice-mismatch" is media-level:
'"ice-mismatch" is a media-level
attribute only, and when present in an answer, indicates that the
offer arrived with a default destination for a media component that
didn't have a corresponding candidate attribute.'
Section Section 6.1 also implies that "ice-mismatch" is media-level:
"In some cases, the answer may omit a=candidate attributes for the
media streams, and instead include an a=ice-mismatch attribute for
one or more of the media streams in the SDP."
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 5245, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", April 2010
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6336
Source of RFC: mmusic (rai)
Errata ID: 3107
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: N V S Kaushik
Date Reported: 2012-02-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section Appendix B.6 says:
However, the check from agent R has not yet generated a response, and agent R receives the updated offer (message 7) before getting the response (message 9).
It should say:
However, the check from agent R has not yet received a response, and agent R receives the updated offer (message 7) before getting the response (message 9).
Notes:
Here, Agent R (ideally Agent B as per the figure 11) has generated the request, so it must receive the response. The original text may give a meaning that Agent R has to generate a response.
Status: Rejected (2)
RFC 5245, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", April 2010
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6336
Source of RFC: mmusic (rai)
Errata ID: 3619
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ashish Kundu
Date Reported: 2013-05-13
Rejected by: Gonzalo Camarillo
Date Rejected: 2013-05-15
Section Section 4, 5 says:
Missed candidate pair in ICE standard
It should say:
Scenario: X is caller, Z is callee. X is behind a non-full-cone (such as symmetric) NAT, Z is behind a full-cone NAT. ICE standard: Section 2.1 of RFC5245 describes the addresses that are collected as candidate addresses: (local address, server-reflexive address, TURN relay address). For X: (X:x, X1:x1, Yx:yx), and for Z: (Z:z, Z1:z1, Yz:yz). Missed candidate pair in ICE standard: 1. X:x sends a connection check message to the Z1:z1 (as part of the process in Section 2.2 of the standard) 2. Since X is behind a non-full cone NAT such a symmetric one, NAT of X maps X:x to X2:x2, sends the message to Z1:z1 3. Z is behind a full-cone NAT, so packets received at Z1:z1 address is forwarded to Z:z by the NAT Since X is behind a non-full cone NAT such a symmetric one and Z is behind a full-cone NAT, connection from X:x to Z1:z1 would be via a server-reflexive address X2:x2 of X, which is not a candidate address for X as specified by ICE. X2:x2 should be a candidate address of X, which however can only be determine when X sends a message to Z. The pair (X2:x2, Z1:z1) provides a direct connection option between X and Y. Conditions on which X2:x2 is a valid candidate address: 1. One of the peers (Z) is behind a full-cone NAT, else step 3 above does not succeed. 2. X2:x2 is unique, i.e., different from X1:x1 (already covered by Section 2.1) if and only if one of the peers is behind a non-full-cone NAT. So I think there should be two stages in the candidate collection process: A: Section 2.1 -- candidate addresses independent of the other clients B: collection of the candidate pairs with respect to the peer, such as X2:x2 and Z2:z2, if any. B consists of the following steps including 1, 2, and 3: 4. Z:z determines if X2:x2 from which it received the message is a different address than in the candidate set of X. 5. If 4 is true, then send an OK message to X2:x2 that it received the message with X2:x2 XOR-encoded. 6. X:x receives the OK message in 4, then X:x determines X2:x2 as its new candidate address. If X:x decides to establish the connection via X2:x2, it sends ACK message to Z2:z2.
Notes:
This feedback for improvement of ICE candidate gathering and decision process was sent to Dr. Rosenberg on Nov 09, 2012. However, since I have not received any response from him over my next two followups and this e-mail, I thought it should be reported via this method.
This is not an error mesage, but a method to improve the candidate gathering and decision process of ICE.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Errata ID: 3952
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Suresh Tummala
Date Reported: 2014-04-04
Rejected by: Richard Barnes
Date Rejected: 2014-04-09
Section 15.1 says:
priority = 1*10DIGIT
Notes:
priority = 1*10DIGIT
Here the maximum value it can hold is "9999999999"(ten-nines)(priority is of maximum length 10 DIGIT as per grammar in sec 15.1).
The number of bits required to hold the maximum value(ten-nines) is 34. Which requires a "double" value instead of integer of 32 bit.
Can i know why the priority is maximum of 10 DIGIT length? If possible we may decrease to 9 DIGIT, so that the value will be fit into integer of 32bit.
-- VERIFIER NOTES --
The limitation to 2^32-1 is made clear elsewhere in the text. The ABNF does not need to enforce this constraint