RFC Errata
Found 6 records.
Status: Verified (4)
RFC 7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7892
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 3944
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11
Section 5.1 says:
ODUk.ts Minimum Nominal Maximum
-----------------------------------------------------------
ODU2.ts 1,249,384.632 1,249,409.620 1,249,434.608
ODU3.ts 1,254,678.635 1,254,703.729 1,254,728.823
ODU4.ts 1,301,683.217 1,301,709.251 1,301,735.285
Table 1: Actual TS Bit Rate of ODUk (in Kbps)
It should say:
ODTUk.ts Minimum Nominal Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------
ODTU2.ts 1,249,384.632 1,249,409.620 1,249,434.608
ODTU3.ts 1,254,678.635 1,254,703.729 1,254,728.823
ODTU4.ts 1,301,683.217 1,301,709.251 1,301,735.285
Table 1: Actual TS Bit Rate of ODUk (in Kbps)
Errata ID: 3945
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11
Section 7 says:
For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style SHOULD also be sent for decreasing the ODUflex bandwidth.
It should say:
For the ingress node, a Path message with SE style MUST also be sent for decreasing the ODUflex bandwidth.
Notes:
Section 7 requires that Shared Explicit (SE) MUST be used at the beginning when creating a resizable ODUflex connection. Thus, the SE style MUST also be used when signaling for bandwidth increase or decrease. The increase procedure mandates the use of SE style; however, the decrease procedure uses SHOULD. The decrease procedure should also make the SE signaling mandatory.
This change, that looks to be a change of substance, has been verified with the authors to be an editorial issue that was caused by not keeping the paragraphs in synch.
Errata ID: 3946
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fred Gruman
Date Reported: 2014-04-02
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-04-11
Section 7 says:
After decreasing the bandwidth, the ingress node SHOULD send a ResvErr message to tear down the old control state.
It should say:
After decreasing the bandwidth, the ingress node SHOULD send a PathTear message to tear down the old control state.
Notes:
PathTear is the usual mechanism to teardown old control state. This is would also make the bandwidth decreasing procedure consistent with the bandwidth increasing procedure (bandwidth increasing procedure uses PathTear to teardown old control state.)
This change looks like a change of substance, but the authors confirm that their intent was to use the same process for both the increase and decrease in bandwidth.
Errata ID: 3928
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adrian Farrel
Date Reported: 2014-03-22
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-03-22
Section 11 says:
6 Och at 2.5 Gbps [RFC4328]
It should say:
6 OCh at 2.5 Gbps [RFC4328]
Notes:
Trivial capitalization issue that is reflected in the IANA registry and could be tidied up as the registry action is still in the process of being completed.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7892
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 3930
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adrian Farrel
Date Reported: 2014-03-23
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2014-03-24
Section 3 says:
[RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. However, [RFC7096] does not provide the means to signal all the new Signal Types and related mapping and multiplexing functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-MSI (Multiframe Structure Identifier) mode, which assumes that the Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit direction and not checked in the receive direction.
It should say:
[RFC4328] describes GMPLS signaling extensions to support the control for the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. However, as described in[RFC7096], that document does not provide the means to signal all the new Signal Types and related mapping and multiplexing functionalities. Moreover, it supports only the deprecated auto-MSI (Multiframe Structure Identifier) mode, which assumes that the Tributary Port Number (TPN) is automatically assigned in the transmit direction and not checked in the receive direction.
Notes:
RFC 7096 is the analysis of pre-existing GMPLS signalling. It does not contain any protocol extensions itself, but looks at the mechanisms provided in RFC 4328.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 7139, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", March 2014
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7892
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 3924
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fatai Zhang
Date Reported: 2014-03-20
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2014-03-24
Section 11 says:
5 Unassigned [RFC4328]
It should say:
5 Reserved (for G.709) [RFC7139]
Notes:
(1)Unassigned->Reserved (for G.709)
(2)[RFC4328]->[RFC7139]
--VERIFIER NOTES--
After discussion with the raiser of this report who was also the lead editor on the document, and also with one of the CCAMP chairs, the conclusion is that the text in Section 11 is correct. I will contact IANA to get the registry updated.