RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 3810, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", June 2004

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 4604

Source of RFC: magma (int)

Errata ID: 8029
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Marco Seravalli
Date Reported: 2024-07-12
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-07-12

Section 2.2 says: 

   Both Multicast Address Specific Queries and Multicast Address and
   Source Specific Queries are only sent in response to State Change
   Reports, never in response to Current State Reports.  This
   distinction between the two types of reports is needed to avoid the
   router treating all Multicast Listener Reports as potential changes
   in state.  By doing so, the fast leave mechanism of MLDv2, described
   in more detail in section 2.2, might not be effective if a State
   Change Report is lost, and only the following Current State Report is
   received by the router.  Nevertheless, it avoids an increased
   processing at the router and it reduces the MLD traffic on the link.
   More details on the necessity of distinguishing between the two
   report types can be found in Appendix A1.

It should say:

   Both Multicast Address Specific Queries and Multicast Address and
   Source Specific Queries are only sent in response to State Change
   Reports, never in response to Current State Reports.  This
   distinction between the two types of reports is needed to avoid the
   router treating all Multicast Listener Reports as potential changes
   in state.  By doing so, the fast leave mechanism of MLDv2, described
   in more detail in section 2.3, might not be effective if a State
   Change Report is lost, and only the following Current State Report is
   received by the router.  Nevertheless, it avoids an increased
   processing at the router and it reduces the MLD traffic on the link.
   More details on the necessity of distinguishing between the two
   report types can be found in Appendix A1.

Notes:

IIUC the fast leave mechanism is not explain in section 2.2 but in 2.3

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 3810, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", June 2004

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 4604

Source of RFC: magma (int)

Errata ID: 5977
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Toerless Eckert
Date Reported: 2020-02-05
Held for Document Update by: Eric Vyncke
Date Held: 2023-08-03

Throughout the document, when it says:

Notes:

I think PIM WG (which now owns this RFC) repeatedly re-confirmed in discussions that the intended interpretation of RFC3810 is that multicast receivers MUST report MLDv2 membership reports ALSO for link-local IPv6 addresses. Alas, this is still rejected by readers outside of PIM-WG, for example in current IESG review of a new new protocol spec that is stating that MLDv2 must be used to join the link-local IPv6 address of that protocol.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that there is no positively reaffirming text in MLDv2 RFC stating that MLDv2 MUST be used for all addresses scope 2..14 (except FF:01). Instead the text seems to only mentions exceptions (scope 0 and 1 and FF:01) unless i overlooked a passage explicitly reaffirming the need to use MLDv2 for scope 2.

Hence, this errata is editorial in nature to what i understand to be the desired meaning according to PIM-WG, but would be a technical change to what seems to be the interpretation by many implementers.


-------------- Verifier note --------
An errata is for minor change in well-defined sections. The proposed change is more global and should be addressed by a -bis or an update I-D.

Errata ID: 4773
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Lundkvist
Date Reported: 2016-08-11
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2018-09-05

Section 5.1.6 says: 

MISSING

It should say:

5.1.6.  Resv

   Initialized to zero by the sender; ignored by receivers.

Notes:

A description for the Resv field is missing. Section numbering indicates that this has been lost in editing.

== Alvaro Retana ==
Yes, §5.1.6 is missing. I think it is obvious that "Resv" and "Reserved" have the same meaning, so I'm disposing of this report to be considered when/if the document is updated.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search