RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 6 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 8881, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", August 2020

Source of RFC: nfsv4 (wit)

Errata ID: 7324
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML

Reported By: YangJing
Date Reported: 2023-01-29
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2023-01-30

Section 4.2.3 says:

   FH4_VOL_RENAME  The filehandle will expire during rename.  This
      includes a rename by the requesting client or a rename by any
      other client.  If FH4_VOL_ANY is set, FH4_VOL_RENAME is redundant.

It should say:

   FH4_VOL_RENAME  The filehandle will expire during rename.  This
      includes a rename by the requesting client or a rename by any
      other client.  If FH4_VOLATILE_ANY is set, FH4_VOL_RENAME
      is redundant.

Notes:

FH4_VOL_ANY is not defined in this document. It should be FH4_VOLATILE_ANY

Status: Reported (5)

RFC 8881, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", August 2020

Source of RFC: nfsv4 (wit)

Errata ID: 6308
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Calum Mackay
Date Reported: 2020-10-16

Section 18.32.3 says:

   *  The server MUST commit the data at a level at least as high as
      that committed.

It should say:

   *  The server MUST commit the data at a level at least as high as
      that requested.

Notes:

The meaning is probably obvious, but perhaps a MUST ought
to be unambiguous?

---

editorial: also, the point above this one uses the word "stronger"
where this point uses "high", both for the stability level.

The two lines should probably use the same word.

Errata ID: 6337
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Charles Lever
Date Reported: 2020-11-16

Section 18.33.1 says:

struct gss_cb_handles4 {
        rpc_gss_svc_t       gcbp_service; /* RFC 2203 */
        gsshandle4_t        gcbp_handle_from_server;
        gsshandle4_t        gcbp_handle_from_client;
};

It should say:

struct gss_cb_handles4 {
        rpc_gss_service_t   gcbp_service; /* RFC 2203 */
        gsshandle4_t        gcbp_handle_from_server;
        gsshandle4_t        gcbp_handle_from_client;
};

Notes:

RFC 2203 (and its successors) do not define rpc_gss_svc_t. I believe the rpc_gss_service_t type was intended.

Errata ID: 6865
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: David Noveck
Date Reported: 2022-02-28

Section 18.25.4 says:

The server MUST NOT delete the directory entry if the reply from 
OPEN had 
the flag OPEN4_RESULT_PRESERVE_UNLINKED set.

It should say:

If the reply from OPEN had the flag OPEN4_RESULT_PRESERVE_UNLINKED set,
The server 
MUST NOI delete the file contents until each directory entry is 
deleted and the file is no longer open.

Notes:

The existing second and third bullets are directly contradictory.

Errata ID: 7386
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML

Reported By: Pali Rohár
Date Reported: 2023-03-13

Section 18.46.3. says:

                                                             Operations
   other than SEQUENCE, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, EXCHANGE_ID,
   CREATE_SESSION, and DESTROY_SESSION, MUST NOT appear as the first
   operation in a COMPOUND.

It should say:

                                                             Operations
   other than SEQUENCE, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, EXCHANGE_ID,
   CREATE_SESSION, DESTROY_SESSION, and DESTROY_CLIENTID, MUST NOT
   appear as the first operation in a COMPOUND.

Notes:

Section 18.50.3. DESCRIPTION of DESTROY_CLIENTID says

"DESTROY_CLIENTID MAY be preceded with a SEQUENCE"

and also says

"If DESTROY_CLIENTID is not prefixed by SEQUENCE, it MUST be the only operation in the COMPOUND request"

which implies that DESTROY_CLIENTID can appear as the first (and the only) operation in a COMPOUND.

Errata ID: 6611
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Seman.Shen
Date Reported: 2021-06-16

Section 18.37.3 says:

*                                             Otherwise, the error
   CB_BACK_CHAN_BUSY SHOULD be returned to indicate that there are
   CB_COMPOUNDs that need to be replied to.

It should say:

*                                                  Otherwise, the error
   NFS4ERR_BACK_CHAN_BUSY SHOULD be returned to indicate that there are
   CB_COMPOUNDs that need to be replied to.

Notes:

CB_BACK_CHAN_BUSY is not defined in this document.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search