RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 3289, "Management Information Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture", May 2002
Source of RFC: diffserv (tsv)Errata ID: 300
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tom Irwin
Date Reported: 2002-08-08
Report Text:
In the process of implementing the RFC 3289 DiffServ MIB, the following errors and discrepancies were noted. 1. In the diffServClfrTable description (second paragraph), diffServClfrStatus should be diffServClfrStorage. This is an understandability issue. 2. The diffServClfrElementStatus description indicates that this entry cannot be deleted if there is a RowPointer pointing to it. A RowPointer is not used to select a classifier element, but rather the diffServClfrId and diffServClfrElementId index values. Consequently, the diffServClfrElementTable does not require a UsageCounter or a DestroyFlag. This is an understandability issue. 3. In the diffServActionSpecific description (third paragraph) erroneously references a meter. This is an understandability issue. 4. The diffServMinRateAbsolute description indicates that zero is a valid value. The SYNTAX range indicates (1..4294967295), but should be (0..4294967295). This is an understandability issue and a MIB implementation issue. 5. The diffServMinRateRelative description indicates that zero is a valid value and that the values are in units of 1/1000 of 1. The SYNTAX range indicates (1..4294967295), but should be (0..1000). This is an understandability issue and a MIB implementation issue. 6. The diffServMaxRateAbsolute description indicates that zero is a valid value. The SYNTAX range indicates (1..4294967295), but should be (0..4294967295). This is an understandability issue and a MIB implementation issue. 7. The diffServMaxRateRelative description indicates that zero is a valid value and that the values are in units of 1/1000 of 1. The SYNTAX range indicates (1..4294967295), but should be (0..1000). This is an understandability issue and a MIB implementation issue.
Errata ID: 301
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tom Irwin
Date Reported: 2002-08-27
Report Text:
1. During implementation, there has been some confusion on the "reuse of structural elements" in section 2.2. It is clear from the comments and the MIB that counters cannot be effectively reused. What appears confusing is the case when an entire (or partial) DiffServ tree used for a specific interface ifIndex and direction is reused. Is the DiffServ tree in this case just a template such that all of the data path elements are replicated (counters will not work properly) for another interface? This seems reasonable since other data path elements such as queues and schedulers are clearly interface dependent. It is important to remove this ambiguity since the RowPointer usage does not prohibit this "not generally recommended" application. What is the intent? 2. Minor update in section 3.2.2: ' Differentiated Services Code Point ' to ' Differentiated Services Code Point, including "any" ' 3. Figure 9b in section 3.7.2.1 is somewhat difficult at first to follow due to how the multiplexing is shown in the Yellow "Count Action" (an action only has a single input).