RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 5555, "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers", June 2009
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8553
Source of RFC: mext (int)
Errata ID: 3463
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Romain Kuntz
Date Reported: 2013-01-17
Verifier Name: Éric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2024-01-12
Throughout the document, when it says:
with error code 144
Notes:
Binding acknowledgement error status 144 is referenced in sections 4.4.2 and 4.5 to specify that MN should not use UDP encapsulation. However, there is no mention of this status number in the IANA Considerations section (section 8).
-- Verifier note (EV) ---
The MIPv6 Status code 144 does not appear in https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#mobility-parameters-6
Even worse, it is actually assigned to MIPV6-ID-MISMATCH by a previous RFC 4285 (and the semantics of MIPV6-ID-MISMATCH probably does not match RFC 5555 semantics).
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 5555, "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers", June 2009
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8553
Source of RFC: mext (int)
Errata ID: 1805
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Julien Laganier
Date Reported: 2009-07-08
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 8 says:
The IPv4 home address option described in Section 3.1.1 has been assigned value 29. This option is included in the mobility header described in [RFC3775]. The IPv4 address acknowledgement option described in Section 3.2.1 has been assigned value 29. This option is included in the mobility header described in [RFC3775].
It should say:
The IPv4 home address option described in Section 3.1.1 has been assigned value 29. This option is included in the mobility header described in [RFC3775]. The IPv4 address acknowledgement option described in Section 3.2.1 has been assigned value 30. This option is included in the mobility header described in [RFC3775].
Notes:
There's an error in the IANA section of the RFC: while both the IANA registry <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/> and the section of the RFC describing the option <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5555#section-3.2.1> have the correct type value for the IPv4 address acknowledgement option, i.e., 30, the IANA section <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5555#section-8> assigns type value 29 to both the IPv4 home address option and IPv4 address acknowledgement option.