RFC Errata
Found 8 records.
Status: Verified (5)
RFC 4379, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8029
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5462, RFC 6424, RFC 6425, RFC 6426, RFC 6829, RFC 7506, RFC 7537, RFC 7743
Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)
Errata ID: 108
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-01-02
Section 3 says:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 1 (FEC TLV) | Length = 12 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 1 (FEC TLV) | Length = 32 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
According to Section 3.3 of the LDP specification, RFC 3036,
the Lenght element of LDP TLVs measures the size of the Value
element in bytes.
Therefore, 'Length = 12' is wrong, it should be 'Length = 32'.
from pending
Errata ID: 1418
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Brian Carpenter
Date Reported: 2008-04-30
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-01-02
Section 4.3 says:
An MPLS echo request is a UDP packet. The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender; the destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or IPv6 address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104.
It should say:
An MPLS echo request is a UDP packet. The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender; the destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or IPv6 address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104.
Notes:
The ":127" is ambiguous (intended to be decimal, but could be hexadecimal).
An alternative fix would be 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104.
This report was corrected 9/15/08 as requested by Brian Carpenter.
Errata ID: 1714
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yaakov (J) Stein
Date Reported: 2009-03-12
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-01-02
Section 3 says:
Page 6 figure
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version Number | Global Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return Subcode|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (microseconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (microseconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Page 8 para 6
The TimeStamp Sent is the time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the sender's clock) in NTP format [NTP] when the MPLS
echo request is sent.
It should say:
Page 6 figure
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version Number | Global Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return Subcode|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (seconds fraction) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (seconds fraction) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Page 8 para 6
The TimeStamp Sent is the time-of-day in NTP format [NTP],
according to the sender's clock, when the MPLS echo request is sent.
Notes:
The text and figure were contradictory since in NTP format the second field
of 32 bits is fractional seconds, not microseconds.
Errata ID: 1786
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jon Chung Hyok
Date Reported: 2009-05-20
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2009-08-24
Section 4.4 (p. 38) says:
If the number of labels in the FEC stack is greater
than or equal to FEC-stack-depth {
It should say:
If the number of FECs in the FEC stack is greater
than or equal to FEC-stack-depth {
Notes:
labels -> FECs
Errata ID: 3399
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fang Lu
Date Reported: 2012-11-06
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2012-11-23
Section 3.3.1 says:
Those same addresses embedded in IPv6 would be encoded as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
Those same addresses embedded in IPv6 would be encoded as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
The base IPv6 address should have 16 bytes (128 bits), there are more 4 bytes typed.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 4379, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8029
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5462, RFC 6424, RFC 6425, RFC 6426, RFC 6829, RFC 7506, RFC 7537, RFC 7743
Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)
Errata ID: 742
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Date Held: 2010-01-02
(1) [[posted separately.]]
(2) Section 3.3.1 -- formating error
The second encoding diagram on page 27,
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| +-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
should say:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(3) Section 4.4 -- word omission
On page 35, the RFC text contains the bullet:
Best-return-code: contains the return code for the echo reply packet
as currently best known. As algorithm progresses,
this code may change depending on the results of
further checks that it performs.
It should say:
Best-return-code: contains the return code for the echo reply packet
| as currently best known. As the algorithm
progresses, this code may change depending on the
results of further checks that it performs.
(4) Section 4.4 -- word omission in pseudo-code comment
On page 38, within the pseudocode comment, the RFC says:
[...]
may be greater than Label-stack-depth. To be consistent with
the above stack-depths, the bottom is considered to entry 1.
*/
It should say:
[...]
may be greater than Label-stack-depth. To be consistent with
| the above stack-depths, the bottom is considered to be entry 1.
*/
(5) Section 4.4 -- wrong internal section reference
The last paragraph of section 4.4 (Step 7.), on page 40, says:
Send an MPLS echo reply with a Return Code of Best-return-code,
and a Return Subcode of Best-rtn-subcode. Include any TLVs
created during the above process. The procedures for sending
| the echo reply are found in subsection 4.4.1.
^^^^^
It should say:
Send an MPLS echo reply with a Return Code of Best-return-code,
and a Return Subcode of Best-rtn-subcode. Include any TLVs
created during the above process. The procedures for sending
| the echo reply are found in subsection 4.5.
(6) Section 5.1 -- outdated Normative Reference
On page 43, the tag [NTP] points to RFC 2030.
At the time of publication of RFC 4377, RFC 2030 already had been
obsoleted by RFC 4330.
Therefore, the text after [NTP] should be replaced by the
rfc-ref.txt entry for RFC 4330.
(7) Section 6 -- typo
At the end of the second paragraph on page 4, the RFC says:
[...]. However, to provide a
stronger defense, an implementation MAY also validate the TimeStamp
| Sent by requiring and exact match on this field.
^
It should say:
[...]. However, to provide a
stronger defense, an implementation MAY also validate the TimeStamp
| Sent by requiring an exact match on this field.
Notes:
from pending
Errata ID: 2978
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Zhi Zheng
Date Reported: 2011-09-21
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 4.4 (p. 36) says:
Else {
Retrieve the associated label operation from the
corresponding NLFE and proceed to step 4 (Label Operation
check).
It should say:
Else {
Retrieve the associated label operation from the
corresponding NHLFE and proceed to step 4 (Label Operation
check).
Notes:
NLFE -> NHLFE
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 4379, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", February 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8029
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5462, RFC 6424, RFC 6425, RFC 6426, RFC 6829, RFC 7506, RFC 7537, RFC 7743
Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)
Errata ID: 3934
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Nobo Akiya
Date Reported: 2014-03-26
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2014-03-28
Section 4.5 says:
If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an IPv4 UDP packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain the Router Alert IP option.
It should say:
If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain the Router Alert IP option.
Notes:
IPv4 -> IPv4/IPv6
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The issue noted is valid, but the fix is more complicated because the IPv6 solution does not work "out of the box".
After discussion with the Reporter, the RFC authors, and the WG chairs, it is agreed that the situation will be fixed both by a quick I-D to allocate the necessary code points to make IPv6 work, and by a bus to this RFC for the necessary updates.