RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 4668, "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6", August 2006
Source of RFC: radext (sec)
Errata ID: 29
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Verifier Name: Dan Romascanu
Date Verified: 2009-09-03
Section 7 says:
[[Around the page break from page 8 to page 9, and once more, near the top of page 14]] -- -- AccessRequests + PendingRequests + ClientTimeouts = -- Successfully received --
It should say:
-- -- AccessRequests - PendingRequests - ClientTimeouts = -- Successfully received --
Notes:
I strongly suspect that this is wrong (-- and it does not either
match the presentation style of the formulae above in the text).
Conceptually, it makes no sense to count 'PendingRequests' and
'ClientTimeouts' as 'Successfully received', and the subsequent
DESCRIPTION clauses strongly support my suspicion that both
instances of this formula in fact be as above.
from pending
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 4668, "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6", August 2006
Source of RFC: radext (sec)
Errata ID: 867
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu
misleading RFC title, including abuse of defined terms (for RFCs 4668 - 4671) IMHO, the RFC titles, "RADIUS ... MIB for IPv6" are misleading. In fact, the new RFCs extend the RADIUS MIB modules to cover IPv6, but they are not IPv6 specific! Perhaps, better wording would have been "... for IPv4 and IPv6". Furthermore, a very 'popular' clash of terms shines up here. As specified in RFC 3410 and Part 1 of STD 62, RFC 3411, and re-stated in the boilerplate Section 3, "The Internet-Standard Management Framework", of all four RFCs, there's just one single Management Information Base (MIB) comprised of various "MIB modules". Thus, throughout the titles and the text bodies of the RFCs, the proper term, "RADIUS ... MIB module" should be used instead of the rather sluggish "RADIUS ... MIB".
Notes:
from pending
Errata ID: 884
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Held for Document Update by: Dan Romascanu
Section 7 says:
hundredths of a second
It should say:
centiseconds
Notes:
Why not use the common ISO-standard unit-multiple name, "centiseconds" (abbreviation: "cs"), instead of the long-winded "hundredths of a second" ?
This applies to the DESCRIPTION clauses of
- radiusAuthClientRoundTripTime (RFC 4668, page 8),
- radiusAuthClientExtRoundTripTime (RFC 4668, page 13)
from pending