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
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.