Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 4377, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", February 2006

Errata ID: 109
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-08-21

Section 2.1 says:

   One-hop Delay:             The fixed delay experienced by a packet to
                              reach the next hop resulting from the of
                              the propagation latency, the transmission
                              latency, and the processing latency.

It should say:

   One-hop Delay:             The fixed delay experienced by a packet to
                              reach the next hop resulting from the sum
                              of the propagation latency, the
                              transmission latency, and the processing
                              latency.

Notes:

Fix word omission. Insert "sum"

Errata ID: 676
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-08-21

Section 4.1 says:

   Furthermore, the automation of path liveliness is desired in cases
   where large numbers of LSPs might be tested.  [...]

It should say:

|  Furthermore, the automation of path liveliness testing is desired in
   cases where large numbers of LSPs might be tested.  [...]

Notes:

Fix word omission. Insert "testing"

Errata ID: 677
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-08-21

Section 4.11.1 says:

      (1) At an ingress LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs that
|         begin at each egress in question.
          ^^^^^

      (2) At an intermediate LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs for
|         each pair of ingress to egress.
                               ^^ 
            v
|     (3) At egress LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs for each
          ingress.

It should say:

      (1) At an ingress LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs that
|         end at each egress in question.

      (2) At an intermediate LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs for
|         each pair of ingress and egress.

|     (3) At an egress LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs for each
          ingress.

Notes:

Fix wrong wording in bullet (1) [s/begin/end/]

Minor typos in bullets (2) and (3).

Errata ID: 3753
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: RFC Editor
Date Reported: 2013-10-15
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2013-10-16

In the Authors' Addresses, it says:

Comments should be made directly to the MPLS mailing list
at mpls@lists.ietf.org.

Notes:

This report has been modified from the original report submitted.

'@lists.ietf.org' was changed to '@ietf.org' in the year 2005 so that comments should be made directly to the MPLS mailing list at mpls@ietf.org.

However, this type of statement is typically removed from Internet-Drafts when they are published as RFCs, and it was only the presence of this statement in an unusual place in the document that caused it to be retained.

Therefore, this statement should be removed in entirety.

Report New Errata