RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 5088, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", January 2008
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9353
Source of RFC: pce (rtg)
Errata ID: 1266
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-13
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2010-01-02
Section 4.4, 2nd par says:
| A PCED sub-TLV may include several NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the PCE can compute paths towards several neighbor PCE-Domains.
It should say:
| A PCED TLV may include several NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the PCE can compute paths towards several neighbor PCE-Domains.
Notes:
In OSPF, PCED is a TLV, not a sub-TLV, as clearly stated
in this RFC. All other occurrences of 'PCED' in the RFC
indeed correctly use 'TLV'.
Errata ID: 6459
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: tom petch
Date Reported: 2021-03-08
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2021-03-25
Section 7.2 says:
This document provides new capability bit flags, which are present in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS TLV referenced in Section 4.1.5.
It should say:
This document provides new capability bit flags, which are present in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS TLV referenced in Section 4.5.
Notes:
There is no Section 4.1.5.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 5088, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", January 2008
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9353
Source of RFC: pce (rtg)
Errata ID: 1264
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-13
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 2 (p.4/bot.) says:
TLV: Type-Length-Variable data encoding.
It should say:
TLV: Type-Length-Value data encoding.
Notes:
Wrong expansion of acronym;
cf. RFC 4940 and RFC-Ed. file "abbrev.expansion.txt"
Errata ID: 1267
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-01-13
Held for Document Update by: Adrian Farrel
Section 9.6, line 1 says:
... PCED TLV, may have ...
It should say:
... PCED TLV may have ...
Notes:
Spurious comma, distorting the grammar.
>>> This issue is not present in the equivalent text of
RFC 5089, which has been published together with this RFC.
This report is primarily intended as a kind of quality control feedback.
Another typographical flaw of similar 'severity' appears in Section 11.2,
where punctuation has been orphaned into the 3rd line of the '[PCEP]'
entry:
[PCEP] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)
| ", Work in Progress, November 2007.
^^
>>> This latter issue also is present in RFC 5089.
and perhaps does not deserve