RFC Errata
Found 8 records.
Status: Verified (8)
RFC 3031, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", January 2001
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6178, RFC 6790
Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)
Errata ID: 348
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Kristoff
Date Reported: 2005-03-01
Section 2.3 says:
LDP Label Distribution Protocol L2 Layer 2 L3 Layer 3 LSP Label Switched Path
It should say:
LDP Label Distribution Protocol L2 Layer 2 L3 Layer 3 LSP Label Switched Path
Notes:
there is a missing CR/LF
Errata ID: 696
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: John Kristoff
Date Reported: 2005-03-01
Section 3.20 says:
For example, a set of distinct address prefixes might all have the same egress node, and label swapping might be used only to get the the traffic to the egress node.
It should say:
For example, a set of distinct address prefixes might all have the same egress node, and label swapping might be used only to get the traffic to the egress node.
Notes:
Notice the double 'the'.
Errata ID: 1893
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dande Rajasekhar
Date Reported: 2009-09-24
Verifier Name: Ross Callon
Date Verified: 2009-09-29
Section 4.1.6 says:
It is important to note that if Ru and Rd are adjacent LSRs in an LSP for X1 and X2, forwarding will still be done correctly if Ru assigns distinct labels to X1 and X2 while Rd assigns just one label to the both of them. This just means that R1 will map different incoming labels to the same outgoing label, an ordinary occurrence.
It should say:
It is important to note that if Ru and Rd are adjacent LSRs in an LSP for X1 and X2, forwarding will still be done correctly if Ru assigns distinct labels to X1 and X2 while Rd assigns just one label to the both of them. This just means that Rd will map different incoming labels to the same outgoing label, an ordinary occurrence.
Notes:
R1 should be replaced by Rd since there is no reference for R1.
Errata ID: 2782
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Valeria Elisabetta Mattavelli
Date Reported: 2011-04-18
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2011-04-18
Section 2.2 says:
layer 3 the protocol layer at which IP and its
associated routing protocols operate
link layer synonymous with layer 2
It should say:
layer 3 the protocol layer at which IP and its
associated routing protocols operate
link layer synonymous with layer 2
Notes:
Wrong text indentation
Errata ID: 5002
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Eric Gray
Date Reported: 2017-04-21
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2017-06-12
Section 3.8 says:
Liberal label retention mode allows for quicker adaptation to routing changes, but conservative label retention mode though requires an LSR to maintain many fewer labels.
It should say:
Liberal label retention mode allows for quicker adaptation to routing changes, while conservative label retention mode requires an LSR to maintain many fewer labels.
Notes:
Grammar error in original text, which may make it harder for some to read and understand.
Verifier Notes: (removed the spurious "though")
Errata ID: 7841
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Christophe Deleuze
Date Reported: 2024-03-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-03-08
Section 2.2 says:
label switched path The path through one or more LSRs at one
level of the hierarchy followed by a
packets in a particular FEC.
It should say:
label switched path The path through one or more LSRs at one
level of the hierarchy followed by packets
in a particular FEC.
Notes:
s/a packets/packets/
Errata ID: 7842
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Christophe Deleuze
Date Reported: 2024-03-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-03-08
Section 2.2 says:
MPLS edge node an MPLS node that connects an MPLS
domain with a node which is outside of
the domain, either because it does not
run MPLS, and/or because it is in a
different domain. Note that if an LSR
has a neighboring host which is not
running MPLS, that that LSR is an MPLS
edge node.
It should say:
MPLS edge node an MPLS node that connects an MPLS
domain with a node which is outside of
the domain, either because it does not
run MPLS, and/or because it is in a
different domain. Note that if an LSR
has a neighboring host which is not
running MPLS, then that LSR is an MPLS
edge node.
Notes:
s/that that/then that/
Errata ID: 7843
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Christophe Deleuze
Date Reported: 2024-03-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-03-08
Section 2.2 says:
VP merge label merging where the MPLS label is
carried din the ATM VPI field, so as to
It should say:
VP merge label merging where the MPLS label is
carried in the ATM VPI field, so as to
Notes:
s/din/in/