RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 4992, "XML Pipelining with Chunks for the Internet Registry Information Service", August 2007

Source of RFC: crisp (app)

Errata ID: 1009
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Verifier Name: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Verified: 2011-08-01

Section Appendix A says:

   C:           (chunk 1)
   C: 0x44      (LC=no,DC=yes,CT=sd)
   C: 0x00 0x11 (chunk length=11)

It should say:

   C:           (chunk 1)
   C: 0x44      (LC=no,DC=yes,CT=sd)
   C: 0x00 0x12 (chunk length=18)

Notes:

Apparently, there is an inconsistency in chunk 1 of the first request block, closely related to errata ID 2830, and this has nurtured my suspicion reported there that perhaps the 'mechanism data length' field has been added late in the draft history, without sufficient care.

The first chunk data field has the following components:
SASL mechanism "PLAIN" ... 1 + 5 octets
10 octets of SASL PLAIN data ... 2 + 10 octets
This sums up to (decimal) 18 octets, or 0x12.

[Separated out other errata from this one. This was the last erratum originally reported in 1009.]

Errata ID: 2829
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Verifier Name: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Verified: 2011-08-01

Section 6.2 says:

  Chunks of this type contain XML conformant to the schema specified in
  [9] and MUST have the <versions> element as the root element.

It should say:

   Chunks of this type MUST contain XML conformant to the schema
   specified in [9] and MUST have the <versions> element as the root
   element, unless sent by the Client to solicit version information;
   client to server chunks may be zero length, as detailed below.

Notes:

Note: This erratum was separated off from erratum #1009.

The reporter of the erratum said:

As already mentioned earlier in the text and clarified in the
second-to-last paragraph of the same section, this requirements
language is improper because it is intended to allow clients to
send this type of chunk as well, with unspecified (perhaps empty)
content, to be ignored by the server.

The authors of the specification provided the following notes:

We recommend accepting the error reported in Erratum ID 2829,
but we do not recommend accepting the proposed fix. The issue
is that the MUSTs listed in the original apply when the server
emits this, but not to the client when it is soliciting this.
We recommend the following:

"Chunks of this type MUST contain XML conformant to the schema
specified in [9] and MUST have the <versions> element as the
root element, unless sent by the Client to solicit version
information; client to server chunks may be zero length, as
detailed below."

Errata ID: 2827
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Verifier Name: Pete Resnick
Date Verified: 2011-06-11

Section 4 says:

|                 [...].  Conceptually, a CRB is a type of RQB; they
   share the same format, but a CRB is constrained in conveying only
   specific information and is only sent at the beginning of the session
   lifecycle.

It should say:

|                 [...].  Conceptually, a CRB is a type of RSB; they
   share the same format, but a CRB is constrained in conveying only
   specific information and is only sent at the beginning of the session
   lifecycle.

Notes:

Separating separate errata from 1009.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search