RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 6 records.

Status: Verified (6)

RFC 4872, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", May 2007

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 4873, RFC 6780, RFC 9270

Source of RFC: ccamp (rtg)

Errata ID: 928
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-10-30

Section 14.1 says: 

[[Within the explanations for the PROTECTION Object, on mid-page 32]]

Reserved: 5 bits

It should say:

Reserved: 6 bits

Notes:

See the artwork of the object on page 31 and count the bits.

from pending

Errata ID: 929
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-02

Section 15.1 says: 

   The primary path route is specified via the PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object
   (PPRO).  The Primary Path Route Class Number (Class-Num) of form
   0bbbbbbb 38.

It should say:

   The primary path route is specified via the PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object
   (PPRO).  The Primary Path Route Class Number (Class-Num) of form
   0bbbbbbb is 38.
       
or even:

   The primary path route is specified via the PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object
   (PPRO).  The Primary Path Route Class Number (Class-Num) of form
   0bbbbbbb assigned by IANA is 38.

Notes:

Missing verb.

from pending

Errata ID: 930
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-02

Section 15.1 says: 

   The contents of a PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object are a series of
   variable-length data items called subobjects (see Section 15.3).

It should say:

   The contents of a PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object are a series of
   variable-length data items called subobjects (see Section 15.2).

Notes:

Referred to wrong section. 15.3 --> 15.2

from pending

Errata ID: 931
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-10-30

Section 15.2 says: 

   An empty PPRO with no subobjects is considered illegal.  If there is
   no first subobject, the corresponding Path message is also in error,
   and the receiving node SHOULD return a PathErr message with the new
   error code/sub-code "Routing Problem/Bad PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object".

It should say:

   An empty PPRO has no subobjects and is considered illegal.  A node
   receiving a Path message containing an empty PPRO SHOULD return a
   PathErr message with the new error code/sub-code "Routing Problem/
   Bad PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object".

Notes:

The original problem report said...

According to the text, PPROs are only admitted in Path messages.
PPROs "with no first subobject" carry no subobjects at all.
It is unclear why the text tries to distinguish these 'too cases'
and uses the word, "also", in the second sentence.

Something significant might have been lost in the text,
which cannot be concluded from the context.
In this case, please supply the missing clues.
Otherwise, the RFC should read unambiguously as supplied above.

...and proposed the text...

An empty PPRO with no subobjects is considered illegal. A node
receiving an empty PPRO SHOULD return a PathErr message with the new
error code/sub-code "Routing Problem/Bad PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object".

This proposal is rejected in favor of the corrected text because it lost some of the meaning.

Errata ID: 933
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-05-07
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-10-30

Section 16.2 says: 

   Similarly, terminating nodes receiving a Path message with a
   PROTECTION object requiring association between working and recovery
   LSPs MUST include an ASSOCIATION object.  Otherwise, such nodes MUST
   return a PathErr message with the new error code/sub-code "Routing
   Problem/PROTECTION object not Applicable".

It should say:

   Similarly, a Path message with a PROTECTION object requiring
   association between working and recovery LSPs MUST include an
   ASSOCIATION object.  Terminating nodes receiving such Path message
   without an ASSOCIATION object MUST return a PathErr message with the
   new error code/sub-code "Routing Problem/PROTECTION object not
   Applicable".

Errata ID: 1935
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Vishwas Manral
Date Reported: 2009-10-29
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2009-10-30

Section 15.3 says: 

   - PRROs SHOULD be present in the Path message for the pre-
     provisioning of the secondary protecting LSP to enable recovery
     resource sharing between one or more secondary protecting LSPs (see
     Section 15.4).

It should say:

   - PPROs SHOULD be present in the Path message for the pre-
     provisioning of the secondary protecting LSP to enable recovery
     resource sharing between one or more secondary protecting LSPs (see
     Section 15.4).

Notes:

Second bullet point in the section.
s/PRRO/PPRO/

Report New Errata



Advanced Search