RFC Errata
Found 12 records.
Status: Verified (4)
RFC 6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", March 2012
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9008, RFC 9010
Source of RFC: roll (rtg)
Errata ID: 3580
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tony Cheneau
Date Reported: 2013-04-04
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2013-04-10
Section 9.9.1 says:
1. Let C1 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
10000000b. Node N stores an entry associating 10000000b with
the Path Control field for C1 and Target T.
2. Let C2 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
00010000b. Node N stores an entry associating 00010000b with
the Path Control field for C1 and Target T.
3. Let C3 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
00001100b. Node N stores an entry associating 00001100b with
the Path Control field for C1 and Target T.
It should say:
1. Let C1 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
10000000b. Node N stores an entry associating 10000000b with
the Path Control field for C1 and Target T.
2. Let C2 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
00010000b. Node N stores an entry associating 00010000b with
the Path Control field for C2 and Target T.
3. Let C3 send a DAO containing a Target T with a Path Control
00001100b. Node N stores an entry associating 00001100b with
the Path Control field for C3 and Target T.
Notes:
Bullet 2 and 3 seem wrong. I believe "C1" should be replaced by "C2" in bullet 2 and "C1" should be replaced by "C3" in bullet 3.
This issue was initially reported by Federico Consoli on the ROLL WG mailing list.
Errata ID: 3287
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Duong Nguyen
Date Reported: 2012-07-18
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2012-07-29
Section 6.5.1 says:
127-255: Rejection; the node sending the DAO-ACK is unwilling to
act as a parent.
It should say:
128-255: Rejection; the node sending the DAO-ACK is unwilling to
act as a parent.
Notes:
The status code range of "Rejection" overlaps with status code range of "Not an outright rejection".
The text in the body of the document makes it clear that the "Corrected Text" suggested here is what was intended.
Errata ID: 3895
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Lei Mou
Date Reported: 2014-02-17
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-02-24
Section 9.8 says:
1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transmit Information
option MUST be empty.
5. ...
When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs
it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their
associated Transmit Information options.
It should say:
1. The DODAG Parent Address subfield of a Transit Information
option MUST be empty.
5. ...
When a storing node generates a DAO, it uses the stored state of DAOs
it has received to produce a set of RPL Target options and their
associated Transit Information options.
Notes:
There is no "Transmit Information option", It should be Transit Information option.
Errata ID: 6554
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2021-04-22
Verifier Name: Alvaro Retana
Date Verified: 2021-04-22
Section 9.9 says:
2. The node MUST logically construct groupings of its DAO parents
while populating the Path Control field, where each group
consists of DAO parents of equal preference. Those groups MUST
then be ordered according to preference, which allows for a
logical mapping of DAO parents onto Path Control subfields (see
Figure 27). Groups MAY be repeated in order to extend over the
entire bit width of the patch control field, but the order,
including repeated groups, MUST be retained so that preference is
properly communicated.
It should say:
2. The node MUST logically construct groupings of its DAO parents
while populating the Path Control field, where each group
consists of DAO parents of equal preference. Those groups MUST
then be ordered according to preference, which allows for a
logical mapping of DAO parents onto Path Control subfields (see
Figure 27). Groups MAY be repeated in order to extend over the
entire bit width of the path control field, but the order,
including repeated groups, MUST be retained so that preference is
properly communicated.
Notes:
Typo - patch instead of path
Status: Held for Document Update (8)
RFC 6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", March 2012
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9008, RFC 9010
Source of RFC: roll (rtg)
Errata ID: 5160
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
Date Reported: 2017-10-18
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-11-06
Section 6.7.4 says:
The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in DIO or DAO messages, and its format is as follows:
It should say:
The DAG Metric Container option MAY be present in the DIO message, and its format is as follows:
Notes:
The DAG Metric Container is not defined as one of the valid options in Section 6.4.3.
Errata ID: 3311
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Duong Nguyen
Date Reported: 2012-08-08
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 6.7.10 says:
R: 1-bit router address flag. When set, it indicates that the
Prefix field contains a complete IPv6 address assigned to the
sending router that can be used as parent in a target option.
It should say:
R: 1-bit router address flag. When set, it indicates that the
Prefix field contains a complete IPv6 address assigned to the
sending router that can be used as parent in a transit option.
Notes:
parent address is carried in transit option, not target option.
Errata ID: 3581
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tony Cheneau
Date Reported: 2013-04-04
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 6.4.3 says:
A special case of the DAO message, termed a No-Path, is used in Storing mode to clear Downward routing state that has been provisioned through DAO operation. The No-Path carries a Target option and an associated Transit Information option with a lifetime of 0x00000000 to indicate a loss of reachability to that Target.
It should say:
A special case of the DAO message, termed a No-Path, is used in Storing mode to clear Downward routing state that has been provisioned through DAO operation. The No-Path carries a Target option and an associated Transit Information option with a lifetime of 0x00 to indicate a loss of reachability to that Target.
Notes:
The Path Lifetime field of the Transit Information option is a 8-bit field. Using 0x00000000 here would indicate a 32 bits encoding and is misleading.
Errata ID: 4219
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Richardson
Date Reported: 2015-01-05
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2015-01-06
Section 1.0 says:
This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL). Note that although RPL was specified according to the requirements set forth in the aforementioned requirement documents, its use is in no way limited to these applications.
It should say:
This document specifies the IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL). The acronym RPL is used extensively in other documents and in other acronyms,and it is pronounced "ripple". As such, it is appropriate to write "a RPL root" as if the acronym was pronounced, rather than "an RPL root" if the letters were spelt out "arr peee ell". Note that although RPL was specified according to the requirements set forth in the aforementioned requirement documents, its use is in no way limited to these applications.
Notes:
Pronunciation of RPL
Newcomers to the IoT space do not know what "ripple" is.
This is recorded as errata so that it does not get lost on 6550bis.
Errata ID: 4457
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2015-08-27
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-02-15
Section 20.9 says:
in title of section (one instance) and text (two instances) "DODAG Informational Solicitation"
It should say:
"DODAG Information Solicitation"
Notes:
DIS is defined in Section 2 (Terminology) as "DODAG Information Solicitation".
This acronym is expanded consistently throughout the RFC but in this section.
=== Alvaro Retana ===
Note that this error affects the name of the IANA registry as well. A future revision of this document should request an update to that name as well.
Errata ID: 4458
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2015-08-27
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-02-15
Section 20.10 says:
No bit is currently defined for the DIS (DODAG Informational Solicitation) Flags.
It should say:
No bit is currently defined for the DIO (DODAG Information Object) Flags.
Notes:
This is obviously an erroneous copy-paste from section 20.9
Errata ID: 4618
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yasuyuki Tanaka
Date Reported: 2016-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-02-15
Section 6.7.6 says:
Reserved: 7-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
It should say:
Reserved: 8-bit unused field. The field MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Notes:
The error is clear, but it should not affect implementations.
Figure 24 clearly shows that the Reserved field of DODAG Configuration options is 8 bits long.
Errata ID: 4654
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Richardson
Date Reported: 2016-04-04
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-07-14
Section 2, 5.1, 6.3 says:
Section 2 defines DODAGID:
DODAGID: A DODAGID is the identifier of a DODAG root. The DODAGID is
unique within the scope of a RPL Instance in the LLN. The
tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID) uniquely identifies a DODAG.
It should say:
DODAGID: A DODAGID is the identifier of a DODAG root. The DODAGID MUST be a reachable IPv6 address of the root node. The DODAG MUST be unique within the scope of a RPL Instance in the LLN. The tuple (RPLInstanceID, DODAGID) uniquely identifies a DODAG.
Notes:
section 5.1, and 6.3 also offered definitions of DODAGID, the above text summarizes those sections.