RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 5050, "Bundle Protocol Specification", November 2007
Source of RFC: IRTF
Errata ID: 1504
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10
Section 6.1.1,pg.40 says:
| Fragment Offset: If the bundle fragment bit is set in the status | flags, then the offset (within the original application data unit) of the payload of the bundle that caused the status report to be generated is included here. | Fragment length: If the bundle fragment bit is set in the status | flags, then the length of the payload of the subject bundle is included here.
It should say:
| Fragment Offset: If the bundle fragment bit is set in the | administrative record flags, then the offset (within the original application data unit) of the payload of the bundle that caused the status report to be generated is included here. | Fragment length: If the bundle fragment bit is set in the | administrative record flags, then the length of the payload of the subject bundle is included here.
Notes:
Note the distinct fields:
-- administrative record flags (least significant nibble of the
one-octet administrative record header, per Figure 9 on pg.37)
-- status flags (first octet in the body of a bundle status report,
per Figure 11 on page 39)
The fragment bit is contained in the former, not in the latter.
Attention: this same issue recurs literally in Section 6.1.2,
on pg. 43, below Figure 14 !
Errata ID: 1505
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10
Section 6.1.2,pg.43 says:
<same as for Section 6.1.1 -- see Errata ID 1504>
It should say:
<same as for Section 6.1.1 -- see Errata ID 1504>
Errata ID: 1506
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-09-15
Verifier Name: Stephen Farrell
Date Verified: 2009-11-10
Section 10.2,p.47/48 says:
... Work Progress, ...
It should say:
... Work in Progress, ...
Notes:
Occurs twice, in entry [BSP] and in entry [SECO].
"Work in Progress" is mandatory per various process and IPR documents,
for referring to an Internet-Draft.