RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (5)

RFC 3031, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", January 2001

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")

Report New Errata



Advanced Search