RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4140, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6)", August 2005

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5380

Source of RFC: mipshop (int)

Errata ID: 181
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Teemu Huovila
Date Reported: 2006-08-23
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 9.2 says: 

This kind of dynamic hierarchy (or anchoring) is only recommended for cases where 
inter-AR u0movement is not frequent.

It should say:

This kind of dynamic hierarchy (or anchoring) is only recommended for cases where 
inter-AR movement is not frequent.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 4140, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6)", August 2005

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5380

Source of RFC: mipshop (int)

Errata ID: 182
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-09-14
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-06-06

Appendix A

1.)  There are a couple of issues with the citations given
     in Appendix A, on pp. 24-27 :

1.1) I suspect that the repeated occurrences of "[5]" should
     in fact be "[4]" (the Fast Handover RFC 4068).

1.2) The final phrase at the bottom of page 26 should obviously
     refer to RFC 4067 (CXTP) instead of a "work in progress"
     (add appropriate ref to section 14.2.!)

1.3) The citations "[6]" on page 27 apparently make no sense --
     SEND does not update RFC 4068.  I suspect a reference to
     some "work in progress" would have been appropriate.

2.)  Minor typos and proposed textual improvements

2.1) On p.8, in line 5 (i.e. the end of section 4.1.):
     instead of "introduced in future" the text might perhaps
     better say: "introduced in the future".

2.2) On p. 14, in the bottom line (at the end of section 7.1.),
     the final "." is missing.

2.3) On p. 16, in the 2nd-to-last paragraph of section 7.2.,
     The phrase "RCoA is then bound to ..." should perhaps better
     say: "The RCoA is then bound to ...".

2.4) On page 19, in the final line of section 9.2., the word
     "movement" is mis-spelled "u0movement".

2.5) On page 20, in the enumerated list at the end of section 12.,
     I propose to remove the "The" in all 3 items, aligning with
     the titles of the subsequent sections 12.1. - 12.3.

It should say:

[see above]

Notes:

from pending





--VERIFIER NOTES--
RFC 4140 has been obsoleted by RFC 5380.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search