RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 3659, "Extensions to FTP", March 2007

Source of RFC: ftpext (app)

Errata ID: 899
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-04-14
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-02

Section 6.5 says:

   That those pathnames all exist does not imply that the TVFS sever
   will necessarily grant any kind of access rights to the named paths,
   or that access to the same file via different pathnames will
   necessarily be granted equal rights.

It should say:

   That those pathnames all exist does not imply that the TVFS server
   will necessarily grant any kind of access rights to the named paths,
   or that access to the same file via different pathnames will
   necessarily be granted equal rights.

Notes:

typo: sever --> server

from pending

Errata ID: 900
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-04-14
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-02

Section 7 says:

   The MLST and MLSD commands also extend the FTP protocol as presented
   in STD 9, RFC 959 [3] and STD 3, RFC 1123 [9] to allow that
   transmission of 8-bit data over the control connection.

It should say:

   The MLST and MLSD commands also extend the FTP protocol as presented
   in STD 9, RFC 959 [3] and STD 3, RFC 1123 [9] to allow the
   transmission of 8-bit data over the control connection.

Notes:

typo: that --> the

from pending

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 3659, "Extensions to FTP", March 2007

Source of RFC: ftpext (app)

Errata ID: 6252
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Simon Kissane
Date Reported: 2020-08-08

Section 10.2 says:

To add a file type to this OS specific registry of OS specific file types, an applicant must send to the IANA a request, in which is specified the OS name, the OS specific file type, a definition of the syntax of the fact value, which must conform to the syntax of a token as given in this document, and a specification of the semantics to be associated with the particular fact and its values.

It should say:

To add a file type to this OS specific registry of OS specific file types, an applicant must send to the IANA a request, in which is specified the OS name, the OS specific file type, and a specification of the semantics to be associated with the particular OS specific file type.

Notes:

It appears that the text in section 10.2 has been copy/pasted from section 10.1, without applying the necessary adjustments for the differences between OS-specific facts and OS-specific filetypes. While OS-specific facts do have values (see section 7.2), there is no concept of a "value" of an OS-specific filetype defined in the RFC (see section 7.5.1.5).

This error effectively makes it impossible to register an OS-specific filetype with IANA, were IANA to follow the wording of the RFC to the letter – IANA must demand a "definition of the syntax of the fact value" for every filetype registration, despite the fact that request makes no sense for a filetype as defined in the RFC.

Report New Errata