RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 6335, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", August 2011

Source of RFC: tsvwg (tsv)

Errata ID: 3814

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Gorry Fairhurst
Date Reported: 2013-11-29
Verifier Name: Martin Stiemerling
Date Verified: 2015-12-16

Section 10.3.1 says:

Service codes are assigned on a "first come, first served" basis
according to Section 19.8 of the DCCP specification [RFC4340].

It should say:

Service Codes are generally assigned on a "first come, first
served" basis, according to the rules specified in Section 19.8
of the DCCP specification [RFC4340]. This also defines
exceptions to this policy. [RFC5595] updated the policy
to require Service Codes assignments
in a Standards-Track specification to be assigned from the
Specifications-Required portion of the Service Code registry.

Notes:

RFC 6335 should have noted in Section 10.3.1: Exceptions to the FCFS
policy are documented in RFC 4340. RFC 5595 updated the usage of the SC
values described in RFC 4340.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 6335, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", August 2011

Source of RFC: tsvwg (tsv)

Errata ID: 4999

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Mark Nottingham
Date Reported: 2017-04-19

Throughout the document, when it says:


Notes:

HOLD FOR UPDATE

Many port number assignments are to individuals, but the document does not
contemplate how they should be handled when the assignee is dead or
otherwise can't be contacted.

The most obvious procedure to follow is a transfer (8.5), but that requires
de-assignment (8.2), and that doesn't cover the case above.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×