RFC Errata
Found 10 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (8)
RFC 4447, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", April 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8077
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6723, RFC 6870, RFC 7358
Source of RFC: pwe3 (int)
Errata ID: 3554
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Date Held: 2013-03-16
Section 5.2 says:
- Group ID An arbitrary 32-bit value that represents a group of PWs that is used to create groups in the PW space. The group ID is intended to be used as a port index, or a virtual tunnel index. To simplify configuration, a particular PW ID at ingress could be part of the virtual tunnel for transport to the egress router.
It should say:
- Group ID An arbitrary 32-bit value that represents a group of PWs that is used to create groups in the PW space. The group ID is intended to be used as a port index, or a virtual tunnel index. To | simplify configuration, a particular PW Group ID at ingress could be part of the virtual tunnel for transport to the egress router.
Notes:
"PW ID" should in fact be "PW Group ID"
Errata ID: 938
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Date Held: 2013-03-16
Section 5.3.2.2 says:
5.3.2.2. PW Grouping TLV
It should say:
5.3.2.2. PW Grouping ID TLV
Notes:
change to section title, for terminological consistency
Errata ID: 86
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Abstract says:
It is also possible to use pseudowires to provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and a Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2 PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.
It should say:
It is also possible to use pseudowires to | provide low-rate Time Division Multiplexed and Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and maintaining the | pseudowires, using extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2 PDUs are specified in a set of companion documents.
Notes:
use of articles
Errata ID: 3555
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Date Held: 2013-03-16
Section 5.3.2 says:
(2nd-to-last paragraph on page 13) The PW information length field contains the length of the SAII, TAII, and AGI, combined in octets. If this value is 0, then it | references all PWs using the specified grouping ID. In this case, there are no other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any interface parameters TLVs.
It should say:
The PW information length field contains the length of the SAII, TAII, and AGI, combined in octets. If this value is 0, then it | references all PWs using the grouping ID (specifed in the PW grouping | ID TLV). In this case, there are no other FEC element fields (AGI, SAII, etc.) present, nor any interface parameters TLVs.
Notes:
To make the context more clear
Errata ID: 3115
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07
Section 5.1 says:
(page 8, the first 2 tables) This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP: TLV Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== PW Status TLV 5.4.2 Notification PW Interface Parameters TLV 5.3.2.1 FEC PW Grouping ID TLV 5.3.2.2 FEC Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined: FEC Element Type Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== 0x80 5.2 FEC 0x81 5.3 FEC
It should say:
This document specifies the following new TLVs to be used with LDP: TLV Specified in Section Defined for Message =================================================================== PW Status TLV 5.4.2 Notification | PW Interface Parameters TLV 5.3.2.1 with FEC TLV | PW Grouping ID TLV 5.3.2.2 with FEC TLV Additionally, the following new FEC element types are defined: | FEC Element Type FEC Element Name Specified in Section =================================================================== | 0x80 PWid 5.2 | 0x81 Generalized PWid 5.3
Notes:
wrong term(s) used in table(s).
Apparently, "FEC" is not appropriate in the last column of the first
table, and "Defined for Message" makes no sense in the second table,
where only "FEC" appears, as "FEC" is not an LDP message, it is a TLV.
Perhaps, the latter column is dispensable, in favor of a new column
showing the name of the FEC element.
-- VERIFIER NOTES --
The editors should look at this if there is an update.
The table is a quick index to information about a specific FEC and likely will be removed in a future version of this RFC.
Errata ID: 3114
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07
Section 5.4.2 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Notification (0x0001) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status (TLV) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Status TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PWId FEC TLV or Generalized ID FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Notification (0x0001) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status (TLV) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Status TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | FEC TLV with PWId or Generalized PWId FEC Element |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | PW Grouping ID TLV |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
message diagram incomplete.
Rationale:
a) using defined terms verbatim
b) final TLV added: PW Grouping ID TLV
-- VERIFIER NOTES --
The editors should consider this in an future revision, but as the PW Grouping ID TLV is optional it could be addressed in the diagram or with a note.
Errata ID: 3112
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07
Section 6.2 says:
[...]. If one endpoint prefers to use the
control word but the other does not, the one that prefers not to use
| it is has no extra protocol to execute; it just waits for a Label
Mapping message that has c=0.
It should say:
[...]. If one endpoint prefers to use the
control word but the other does not, the one that prefers not to use
| it has no extra protocol to execute; it just waits for a Label
Mapping message that has c=0.
Notes:
typo (spurious word)
Errata ID: 1530
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Vishwas Manral
Date Reported: 2008-09-29
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Section 3 says:
This document specifies all the procedures necessary to set up and
maintain the pseudowires needed to support "unswitched" point-to-
point services, where each end of the pseudowire is provisioned
with the identify of the other endpoint.
^^
It should say:
This document specifies all the procedures necessary to set up and
maintain the pseudowires needed to support "unswitched" point-to-
point services, where each end of the pseudowire is provisioned
with the identity of the other endpoint.
^^
Notes:
None
Status: Rejected (2)
RFC 4447, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", April 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8077
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6723, RFC 6870, RFC 7358
Source of RFC: pwe3 (int)
Errata ID: 3111
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2012-02-07
Section 6.3 says:
a) The first paragraph of Section 6.3, on page 22, says: As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC element, or the PW Grouping ID TLV used with the Generalized ID FEC element, can be used to withdraw all PW labels associated with a particular PW group. [...] It should say: As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC element, or | the PW Grouping ID TLV used with the Generalized PWid FEC element, can be used to withdraw all PW labels associated with a particular PW group. [...] b) The second paragraph of Section 6.3, on top of page 23, says: If the Generalized FEC element is used, the AGI, SAII, and TAII are not present, the PW information length field is set to 0, the PW Grouping ID TLV is included, the Interface Parameters TLV is not present, and the Label TLV is not present. For the purpose of this document, this is called the "wild card withdraw procedure", and all PEs implementing this design are REQUIRED to accept such withdrawn message but are not required to send it. Note that the PW Grouping ID TLV only applies to PWs using the Generalized ID FEC element, while the Group ID only applies to PWid FEC element. It should say: | If the Generalized PWid FEC element is used, the AGI, SAII, and TAII are not present, the PW information length field is set to 0, the PW Grouping ID TLV is included, the Interface Parameters TLV is not present, and the Label TLV is not present. For the purpose of this document, this is called the "wild card withdraw procedure", and all PEs implementing this design are REQUIRED to accept such withdrawn message but are not required to send it. Note that the PW Grouping | ID TLV only applies to PWs using the Generalized PWid FEC element, while the Group ID only applies to PWid FEC element.
Notes:
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The terminology in the RFC is correct.
It is the "generalized PW FEC Element" and not the "generalized PWid FEC element"
Errata ID: 3113
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-09
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2012-02-07
Section 5.4.2 says:
The PW FEC TLV SHOULD not include the interface parameter sub-TLVs, as they are ignored in the context of this message. When a PE's attachment circuit encounters an error, use of the PW Notification Message allows the PE to send a single "wild card" status message, using a PW FEC TLV with only the group ID set, to denote this change in status for all affected PW connections. This status message contains either the PW FEC TLV with only the group ID set, or else it contains the Generalized FEC TLV with only the PW Grouping ID TLV. As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC element, or the PW Grouping ID TLV used with the Generalized ID FEC element, can be used to send a status notification for all arbitrary sets of PWs. [...]
It should say:
| The PWid FEC element SHOULD NOT include the interface parameter sub-TLVs, as they are ignored in the context of this message. When a PE's attachment circuit encounters an error, use of the PW Notification Message allows the PE to send a single "wild card" | status message, using a PWid FEC element with only the group ID set, to denote this change in status for all affected PW connections. | This status message contains either a FEC TLV with a PWid FEC element | with only the group ID set, or else it contains a FEC TLV with a | Generalized PWid FEC element together with only the PW Grouping ID TLV. As mentioned above, the Group ID field of the PWid FEC element, or | the PW Grouping ID TLV used with the Generalized PWid FEC element, can be used to send a status notification for all arbitrary sets of PWs. [...]
Notes:
clarifications, terms and wording
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The terminology was correct at the time of writing.