RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 6275, "Mobility Support in IPv6", July 2011
Source of RFC: mext (int)
Errata ID: 3235
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alastair Galloway
Date Reported: 2012-05-30
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-05-30
Section 4.1 says:
The mobile node may also accept packets from several care-of addresses, such as when it is moving but still reachable at the previous link.
It should say:
The mobile node may also accept packets for several care-of addresses, such as when it is moving but still reachable at the previous link.
Notes:
Looks like a typo ("from" typed, instead of "for"), but affects the technical meaning. I am happy for this erratum to be changed to Type: Editorial.
Errata ID: 5083
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mikael Abrahamsson
Date Reported: 2017-08-10
Verifier Name: Erik Kline
Date Verified: 2023-02-08
Throughout the document, when it says:
Notes:
Section 7.2 of RFC6275 introduces a new flag, called the R bit. This seems to update RFC 4861 section 4.6.2. However, there is no mention in RFC6275 or in RFC4861 that this happened.
--- Notes ---
Thanks for (ahem) flagging this.
RFC 8425 was produced to create an IANA registry of PIO flags and formally update RFC 4861.
Errata ID: 5695
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Brian Carpenter
Date Reported: 2019-04-16
Verifier Name: Eric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2024-01-12
Throughout the document, when it says:
[none]
It should say:
Updates: 4302 [in RFC header]
Notes:
Section 11.3.2 says:
The treatment of destination options described in RFC 4302 is
extended as follows. The AH authentication data MUST be
calculated... [etc.]
This is a change to the AH algorithm and should be flagged as a formal update to RFC 4302.
-- Verifier note (EV) ----
Indeed, RFC 6275 should formally update RFC 4302. This erratum sits somewhere between editorial and technical, and as it does not change the technical content itself, I edited the type to 'editorial'.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 6275, "Mobility Support in IPv6", July 2011
Source of RFC: mext (int)
Errata ID: 5898
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jen Linkova
Date Reported: 2019-11-08
Rejected by: Eric Vyncke
Date Rejected: 2023-08-03
Throughout the document, when it says:
It should say:
It should say: Updates: 4861 [in RFC header]
Notes:
RFC4861 Section 6.2.1 says that
"MaxRtrAdvInterval ..MUST be no less than 4 seconds"
and
"MinRtrAdvInterval...MUST MUST be no less than 3 seconds"
RFC6275 Section 7.5. changes those requirements to:
"Routers supporting mobility SHOULD be able to be configured with a
smaller MinRtrAdvInterval value and MaxRtrAdvInterval value to allow
sending of unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements more often.
The minimum allowed values are:
o MinRtrAdvInterval 0.03 seconds
o MaxRtrAdvInterval 0.07 seconds
"
so it should be flagged as a formal update to RFC4861.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Deviation from RFC 4861 are allowed by its section 6.2.1:
" The default values for some of the variables listed below may be
overridden by specific documents that describe how IPv6 operates over
different link layers."