RFC Errata
Found 7 records.
Status: Verified (7)
RFC 3473, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", January 2003
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 4003, RFC 4201, RFC 4420, RFC 4783, RFC 4874, RFC 4873, RFC 4974, RFC 5063, RFC 5151, RFC 5420, RFC 6002, RFC 6003, RFC 6780, RFC 8359
Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)
Errata ID: 267
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Steve Conner
Date Reported: 2003-02-16
OLD:
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating
Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 2401, November 1998.
It should say:
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication
Header", RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating
Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
Errata ID: 1518
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Pontus Sköldström
Date Reported: 2008-09-18
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2009-10-30
Section 4.2.1 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (1) | C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Notify Node Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 Notify Node Address: 32 bits
The IP address of the node that should be notified when generating
an error message.
o IPv6 Notify Request Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (2) | C-Type (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Notify Node Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(195)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Notify Node Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 Notify Node Address: 32 bits
The IP address of the node that should be notified when generating
an error message.
o IPv6 Notify Request Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(195)| C-Type (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Notify Node Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
The figures showing the format of the Notify Request objects have the wrong Class-Number (seems to have used the C-Type instead).
Errata ID: 4585
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alexander Okonnikov
Date Reported: 2016-01-08
Verifier Name: Deborah Brungard
Date Verified: 2016-02-10
Section 5.2.1 says:
Label RRO subobjects are included in RROs as described in [RFC3209]. The only modification to usage and processing from [RFC3209] is that when labels are recorded for bidirectional LSPs, label ERO subobjects for both downstream and upstream labels MUST be included.
It should say:
Label RRO subobjects are included in RROs as described in [RFC3209]. The only modification to usage and processing from [RFC3209] is that when labels are recorded for bidirectional LSPs, label RRO subobjects for both downstream and upstream labels MUST be included.
Notes:
RRO in place of ERO.
Errata ID: 2159
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sean Turner
Date Reported: 2010-04-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-06-11
Section 12 says:
Alternatively, the sending of no-hop-by-hop Notify messages can be disabled.
It should say:
Alternatively, the sending of non-hop-by-hop Notify messages can be disabled.
Notes:
r/no-hop-by-hop/non-hop-by-hop
Errata ID: 2160
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sean Turner
Date Reported: 2010-04-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-06-11
Section 12 says:
Configured keys MAY be used.
It should say:
Manually configured keys MAY be used.
Notes:
Assumed that this sentence is talking about the opposite of an automated key management system, which is manually configured keys.
Errata ID: 2173
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Vishwas Manral
Date Reported: 2010-04-25
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-06-11
Section TOC says:
10. RSVP Message Formats and Handling ......................... 30
10.1 RSVP Message Formats ................................... 30
10.2 Addressing Path and PathTear Messages ................. 32
It should say:
10. RSVP Message Formats and Handling ......................... 30
10.1 RSVP Message Formats ................................... 30
10.2 Addressing Path, PathTear and ResvConf Messages ....... 32
Notes:
The section is called "Addressing Path, PathTear and ResvConf Messages" while the TOC does not talk about ResvConf Message
Errata ID: 4467
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alexander Okonnikov
Date Reported: 2015-09-08
Verifier Name: Deborah Brungard
Date Verified: 2015-09-10
Section 2.4 says:
Waveband switching uses the same format as the generalized label, see section 2.2.
It should say:
Waveband switching uses the same format as the generalized label, see section 2.3.
Notes:
Incorrect reference.