Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4636, "Foreign Agent Error Extension for Mobile IPv4", October 2006

Errata ID: 822
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-01
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2013-03-16

In the header, it does not include any relationship to other RFCs.

It should say:

Updates: 3344

Notes:

Section 4 of RFC 4636, on page 3, clearly states:

This document updates the Mobile IP base specification [4] regarding
the procedures followed by the foreign agent in the case that the
home agent fails authentication. [...]

... and [4] is RFC 3344.

I expected the line in the RFC heading, and appropriate links in the RFC index.

Has this been omitted by accident, or have there been strong
arguments to omit this significant link ?
In the former case, can that be corrected 'after the fact' ?

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4636, "Foreign Agent Error Extension for Mobile IPv4", October 2006

Errata ID: 824
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-01
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

Section 8 says:

   The extension in this document improves the security features of
   Mobile IPv4 by allowing the mobile node to be assured of the
   authenticity of the information supplied within a Registration
   Request. 

It should say:

   The extension in this document improves the security features of
   Mobile IPv4 by allowing the mobile node to be assured of the
   authenticity of the information supplied within a Registration
   Reply. 

Notes:

From the body of the RFC, I would have expected to find "Reply"
as the last word of that sentence -- cf. Section 1, 2nd sentence,
and Section 4, 1st sentence.

from pending

Report New Errata