RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

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:


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:


It should say:

5.1.6.  Resv

   Initialized to zero by the sender; ignored by receivers.


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