RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 7161, "Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Multicast Handover Optimization by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)", March 2014

Source of RFC: multimob (int)

Errata ID: 4146
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sri Gundavelli
Date Reported: 2014-10-28
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2014-11-20

Section 4.2.2.1 says: 

4.2.2.1.  Proxy Binding Update Message

   As result of the new defined flag, the PBU message format is updated
   as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                     |           Sequence #          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|H|L|K|M|R|P|S|   Reserved    |            Lifetime           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                          Mobility Options                     .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It should say:

4.2.2.1.  Proxy Binding Update Message

   As result of the new defined flag, the PBU message format is updated
   as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                     |           Sequence #          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A|H|L|K|M|R|P|F|T|B|S| Reserved|            Lifetime           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                          Mobility Options                     .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Notes:

There is a mistake in the flags portion of the PBU/PBA messages.
It seems to be overlapping with flags defined in RFC5845. RFC5555. Both the specs were published many years before RFC7161.

Binding Update Flags

Registration Procedure(s)
Standards Action or IESG Approval
Reference
[RFC5213]
Available Formats

CSV
Flag Value Reference
A 0x8000 [RFC6275]
H 0x4000 [RFC6275]
L 0x2000 [RFC6275]
K 0x1000 [RFC6275]
M 0x0800 [RFC4140]
R 0x0400 [RFC3963]
P 0x0200 [RFC5213]
F 0x0100 [RFC5555]
T 0x0080 [RFC5845]
B 0x0040 [RFC6602]
S 0x0020 [RFC7161]


Compare Section 6.2 of RFC 5845 and Section 4.2.2.1 of RFC 7161.

Errata ID: 4147
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sri Gundavelli
Date Reported: 2014-10-28
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2014-11-20

Section 4.2.2.2 says: 

4.2.2.2.  Proxy Binding Acknowledgement Message

   As result of the new defined flag, the PBA message format is updated
   as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                     |    Status     |K|R|P|S| Rsrvd |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Sequence #          |           Lifetime            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                        Mobility Options                       .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It should say:

4.2.2.2.  Proxy Binding Acknowledgement Message

   As result of the new defined flag, the PBA message format is updated
   as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                     |    Status     |K|R|P|T|B|S|Res|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Sequence #          |           Lifetime            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                        Mobility Options                       .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Notes:

There is an error in the flags portion of the PBA.

Binding Acknowledgment Flags

Registration Procedure(s)
Standards Action or IESG Approval
Reference
[RFC5213]
Available Formats

CSV
Flag Value Reference
K 0x80 [RFC6275]
R 0x40 [RFC3963]
P 0x20 [RFC5213]
T 0x10 [RFC5845]
B 0x08 [RFC6602]
S 0x04 [RFC7161]


Compare Section 6.3 of RFC 5845 and Section 4.2.2.2 of RFC 7161.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search