RFC Errata
Found 5 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 6719, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", September 2012
Source of RFC: roll (rtg)
Errata ID: 7773
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2024-01-22
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2024-02-07
Section 2.2 says:
If the cost of the path through the preferred parent and the worst parent is too large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.
It should say:
If the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent and the worst parent is too large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.
Notes:
This sentence is meant to explain that there is no benefit in keeping in the parent set neighbors that have too high a path cost compared to that of the preferred parent.
The original text omits the notion of difference in cost. It also contains a circular reference: indeed, the worst parent is the neighbor within the parent set that has the highest cost.
Verifier's note: the submitter also included this option:
```
or better yet
"A node MAY keep a parent set smaller than PARENT_SET_SIZE, so that
the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent and
the worst parent is not too large."
```
I agree this is a clearer way to express the concept and I think it should be considered if there's ever a bis prepared of the spec, however, I elected to verify the first option given because it represents the minimal change needed to make the document correct.
Errata ID: 7772
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2024-01-22
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-01-22
Section 3.3 says:
to covert
It should say:
to convert
Notes:
describing the conversion of path cost into a rank value.
Status: Held for Document Update (3)
RFC 6719, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", September 2012
Source of RFC: roll (rtg)
Errata ID: 4878
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Cenk Gündogan
Date Reported: 2016-12-06
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-01-25
Section Abstract says:
MRHOF works with additive metrics along a route, and the metrics it uses are determined by the metrics that the RPL Destination Information Object (DIO) messages advertise.
It should say:
MRHOF works with additive metrics along a route, and the metrics it uses are determined by the metrics that the RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages advertise.
Notes:
DIO stands for DODAG Information Object
Errata ID: 4879
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Cenk Gündogan
Date Reported: 2016-12-06
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-01-25
Section 1 says:
RPL advertises metrics in RPL Destination Information Object (DIO) messages with a Metric Container suboption.
It should say:
RPL advertises metrics in RPL DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages with a Metric Container suboption.
Notes:
DIO stands for DODAG Information Object
Errata ID: 5283
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dario Tedeschi
Date Reported: 2018-03-07
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2018-03-14
Section 3.3 says:
whose paths have a large range of Ranks will likely result in subptimal routing: nodes might not choose good paths because they are
It should say:
whose paths have a large range of Ranks will likely result in suboptimal routing: nodes might not choose good paths because they are
Notes:
Incorrect spelling of suboptimal.