RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 5491, "GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations", March 2009
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7459
Source of RFC: geopriv (rai)
Errata ID: 1888
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Martin Thomson
Date Reported: 2009-09-21
Verifier Name: Cullen Jennings
Date Verified: 2009-11-30
Section 3 says:
The PIDF format provides for an unbounded number of <tuple>, <device>, and <person> elements. Each of these elements contains a single <status> element that may contain more than one <geopriv> element as a child.
It should say:
The PIDF format provides for an unbounded number of <tuple>, <device>, and <person> elements. Each of these elements may contain more than one <geopriv> element.
Notes:
<status> only exists in <tuple> [RFC3863], not <device> or <person> [RFC4479]. The proposed text removes the problem.
I believe that it was only late that someone pointed out that <status> only applied to <tuple>; this sentence obviously got missed in the edit.
Errata ID: 1951
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Martin Thomson
Date Reported: 2009-11-30
Verifier Name: Cullen Jennings
Date Verified: 2009-11-30
Section 5.2.2 says:
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A--> <gml:pos>43.111 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--F--> <gml:pos>43.111 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--E--> <gml:pos>43.311 -73.122</gml:pos> <!--D--> <gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--C--> <gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--B--> <gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
It should say:
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A--> <gml:pos>43.111 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--B--> <gml:pos>43.111 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--C--> <gml:pos>43.311 -73.122</gml:pos> <!--D--> <gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--E--> <gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--F--> <gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
Notes:
The points in Figure 7 are correct (i.e., they are in a counter-clockwise direction) but the comment labels are in the wrong order.