RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014
Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)
Errata ID: 3885
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Cullen Jennings
Date Reported: 2014-02-07
Verifier Name: Richard Barnes
Date Verified: 2014-02-15
Section 14.9 says:
| Reserved | 0x8000..0xFFFE | RFC 6940 |
It should say:
| Reserved | 0x8000..0xFFFF | RFC 6940 |
Notes:
Clearly there was some confusion and at least one of the authors thought that 0xFFFE was the largest 16 bit integer when in fact it should have been 0xFFFF. I would like to thank Pearl Liang for catching this mistake.
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014
Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)
Errata ID: 5530
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Chen
Date Reported: 2018-10-16
Section 10.7.4.4 says:
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Node-ID routed through B.
It should say:
P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed through B.
Notes:
10.7.4.4 says, "repeat the discovery process used in the initial join", which refers to the 2nd paragraph after 10.5.9:
"It SHOULD send a Ping directed at Resource-ID n+1 (directly after its own Resource-ID)."
Ping Node-ID is simply wrong. This correction makes it consistent with 10.5.9. Credit goes to xramtsov in the mailing list.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 6940, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol", January 2014
Source of RFC: p2psip (rai)
Errata ID: 4486
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Roland Bless
Date Reported: 2015-09-28
Held for Document Update by: Ben Campbell
Date Held: 2015-09-28
Section 10.8 says:
10.8. Route Query f.in 3
It should say:
10.8. Route Query
Notes:
This is a formatting nit, probably caused by an nroff remnant. However, a bit confusing nevertheless...