RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC 4670, "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6", August 2006

Source of RFC: radext (ops)

Errata ID: 27

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Rejected by: Dan Romascanu
Date Rejected: 2009-09-03

The DESCRIPTION clause of the radiusAccClientRetransmissionsOBJECT-TYPE declaration says:

         DESCRIPTION
               "The number of RADIUS Accounting-Request packets
                retransmitted to this RADIUS accounting server.
                Retransmissions include retries where the
                Identifier and Acct-Delay have been updated, as
                well as those in which they remain the same."

It should say:

         DESCRIPTION
               "The number of RADIUS Accounting-Request packets
                retransmitted to this RADIUS accounting server.
                Retransmissions include retries where the
                Identifier and Acct-Delay have been updated, as
                well as those in which they remained the same."

Notes:

for temporal consistency

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
the difference is not clear

Errata ID: 877

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-11-06
Rejected by: Dan Romascanu
Date Rejected: 2009-09-03

 

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
--VERIFIER NOTES--
no title change needed - ipv6 covers also previous ipv4 support

Report New Errata