Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 5058, "Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options", November 2007

Errata ID: 1205
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-02
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2010-04-19

Section 3 says:

[1075]

It should say:

[1075][3973]

Notes:

In the second bullet in the lower part of page 7, the RFC refers to
dense-mode multicast routing protocols. Beyond the dated RFC 1075,
it should mention the state-of-the-art Dense-Mode PIM (PIM-DM), published
in RFC 3973.
A proper entry [3973] needs to be added to Section 16 as well.

That will be
[3973] Adams, A, Nicholas, J and Siadak, W., "Protocol Independent Multicast -
Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised)," RFC 3973,
January 2005

Errata ID: 1206
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-02
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2010-04-19

Section 9.2.2 says:

   The Xcast4 header is format depicted in Figure 4.  [...]

It should say:

   The Xcast4 header format is depicted in Figure 4.  [...]

Notes:

Word twister.

Errata ID: 1208
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-02
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2010-04-19

Section 9.2.2 ff. says:

     0               1               2               3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | [...]                                                         | 

It should say:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | [...]                                                         |

Notes:

The ruler line on top of Figure 4 (page 18) is garbled.
The figures should be centered to the bit positions, as usual;
the ten's digits need decade alignment; someone must have confused
that with octet numbering.
The same correction needs to be applied to
o Figure 5 in the same section (mid-page 19),
o Figure 6 in Section 9.3.2.1 (top of page 21),
o Figure 7 in Section 9.3.2.2 (top of page 22).

Note to RFC-Ed.: This issue looks like an influenza virus,
it has already affected multiple recent RFCs!

Report New Errata