RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 7810, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", May 2016

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8570

Source of RFC: isis (rtg)

Errata ID: 5293
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Jeffrey Haas
Date Reported: 2018-03-22
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2018-05-24

Section 4.5-4.7 says:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type        |     Length    |  RESERVED     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: 37

   Length: 4

   RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use

It should say:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type        |     Length    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: 37

   Length: 4


Notes:

In sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, a RESERVED field is in the diagram and the text. However, the length field of each of these TLVs is 4. The RESERVED field is thus not present and should be removed in future editions of this document.
===
The discussion in the WG is here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/x5DlcGmwMPf9hvgL6mofNqGpbQA/

Errata ID: 5486
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Teresa
Date Reported: 2018-08-31
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2018-11-04

Section 4.6 says:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link available bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.

It should say:

Available Bandwidth: This field carries the available bandwidth on a
   link, forwarding adjacency, or bundled link in IEEE floating-point
   format with units of bytes per second.  For a link or forwarding
   adjacency, available bandwidth is defined to be residual bandwidth
   (see Section 4.5) minus the measured bandwidth used for the actual
   forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.  For a bundled
   link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the component
   link (residual) bandwidths minus the measured bandwidth used for the
   actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE label switched path packets.For a
   bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the sum of the
   component link available bandwidths.

Notes:

Two sentences to explain 'available bandwidth' on a bundled link, but one says "sum of component available bandwidth minus xxx", the other says "sum of component available bandwidth", is conflicting. need to change the first sentence to 'sum of component residual bandwidth minus xxx'

Report New Errata



Advanced Search