RFC Errata
Found 1 record.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 4804, "Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels", February 2007
Source of RFC: tsvwg (wit)
Errata ID: 972
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-16
Held for Document Update by: Wes Eddy
(1) Section 4.2 -- word omissions
Within Section 4.2, the first paragraph on page 11 says:
[...]. The
Router Alert is not set in the E2E Path message.
| ^
It should say:
[...]. The
Router Alert bit is not set in the E2E Path message.
| ^^^^^
Equally, tha first line of the third paragraph on page 11,
v
| Regardless of the encapsulation method, the Router Alert is not set.
should say:
vvvvv
| Regardless of the encapsulation method, the Router Alert bit is not
set.
(2) Section 4.4 -- another word omission
As above, in the second-to-last paragraph of Section 4.4, on page 12,
the RFC says:
[...]. The
| Deaggregator also sets the Router Alert.
^
It should say:
[...]. The
| Deaggregator also sets the Router Alert bit.
^^^^^
(3) Section 4.5 -- typo / spurious word
The second paragraph of section 4.5, on mid-page 12, says:
[...]. This
includes performing admission control for the segment downstream of
the Deaggregator and forwarding the E2E Resv message to the PHOP
| signaled earlier in the E2E Path message and which identifies the
Aggregator. [...]
^^^^^
It should say:
[...]. This
includes performing admission control for the segment downstream of
the Deaggregator and forwarding the E2E Resv message to the PHOP
| signaled earlier in the E2E Path message which identifies the
Aggregator. [...]
^
(4) Section 4.6 -- yet another word omission
On page 14, the last sentence of Section 4.6 says:
[...]. The Deaggregator also
| sets the Router Alert.
^
It should say:
[...]. The Deaggregator also
| sets the Router Alert bit.
^^^^^
(5) Section 4.9 -- missing articles
Within Section 4.9, the last footnote on page 15 says:
(4) Aggregator selects final TE tunnel, checks that there is
sufficient bandwidth on TE tunnel, and forwards E2E Resv to
PHOP. If final tunnel is different from tunnel tentatively
selected, the Aggregator re-sends an E2E Path with an updated
IF_ID RSVP_HOP and possibly an updated ADSPEC.
It should say:
(4) Aggregator selects final TE tunnel, checks that there is
| sufficient bandwidth on the TE tunnel, and forwards E2E Resv
| to the PHOP. If the final tunnel is different from the tunnel
tentatively selected, the Aggregator re-sends an E2E Path with
an updated IF_ID RSVP_HOP and possibly an updated ADSPEC.
(6) Section 6 -- word omissions, and punctuation
The text in the numbered items in Section 6 consists of full
sentences starting with a capital letter. Therefore all these
paragraphs should terminate in a full-stop. Also, the word
'tuple' is missing twice. Hence:
The RFC says (on page 16):
(1) The E2E RSVP reservation is a per-flow reservation where the
| flow is characterized by the usual 5-tuple
^
(2) The E2E reservation is an aggregate reservation for multiple
flows as described in [RSVP-AGG] or [RSVP-GEN-AGG] where the
set of flows is characterized by the <source address,
| destination address, DSCP>
^
(3) The E2E reservation is a reservation for an IPsec protected
flow. For example, where the flow is characterized by the
| <source address, destination address, SPI> as described in
[RSVP-IPSEC].
^
It should say:
(1) The E2E RSVP reservation is a per-flow reservation where the
| flow is characterized by the usual 5-tuple.
^
(2) The E2E reservation is an aggregate reservation for multiple
flows as described in [RSVP-AGG] or [RSVP-GEN-AGG] where the
set of flows is characterized by the <source address,
| destination address, DSCP> tuple.
^^^^^^^
(3) The E2E reservation is a reservation for an IPsec protected
flow. For example, where the flow is characterized by the
| <source address, destination address, SPI> tuple as described
in [RSVP-IPSEC].
^^^^^^^
(7) Section 8 -- typos
(7a)
The 7th text line of Section 18, on mid-page 18, says:
| The mechanisms protect [...]
^
It should say:
| These mechanisms protect [...]
^^^
(7b)
The 4th paragraph on page 19 says:
Section 5 of [RSVP-AGG] also discusses a security issue specific to
RSVP aggregation related to the necessary modification of the IP
| Protocol number in RSVP E2E Path messages that traverses the
aggregation region. [...]
^^
It should say:
Section 5 of [RSVP-AGG] also discusses a security issue specific to
RSVP aggregation related to the necessary modification of the IP
| Protocol number in RSVP E2E Path messages that traverse the
aggregation region. [...]
^
It should say:
[see above]
Notes:
from pending