RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 6719, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", September 2012

Source of RFC: roll (rtg)

Errata ID: 7773
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2024-01-22
Verifier Name: John Scudder
Date Verified: 2024-02-07

Section 2.2 says: 

If the cost 
of the path through the preferred parent and the worst parent is too 
large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.

It should say:

If the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent 
and the worst parent is too large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent 
set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.

Notes:

This sentence is meant to explain that there is no benefit in keeping in the parent set neighbors that have too high a path cost compared to that of the preferred parent.
The original text omits the notion of difference in cost. It also contains a circular reference: indeed, the worst parent is the neighbor within the parent set that has the highest cost.

Verifier's note: the submitter also included this option:

```
or better yet

"A node MAY keep a parent set smaller than PARENT_SET_SIZE, so that
the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent and
the worst parent is not too large."
```

I agree this is a clearer way to express the concept and I think it should be considered if there's ever a bis prepared of the spec, however, I elected to verify the first option given because it represents the minimal change needed to make the document correct.

Errata ID: 7772
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominique Barthel
Date Reported: 2024-01-22
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2024-01-22

Section 3.3 says: 

to covert

It should say:

to convert

Notes:

describing the conversion of path cost into a rank value.

Status: Held for Document Update (3)

RFC 6719, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", September 2012

Source of RFC: roll (rtg)

Errata ID: 4878
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Cenk Gündogan
Date Reported: 2016-12-06
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-01-25

Section Abstract says: 

MRHOF works with additive metrics along a route, and
the metrics it uses are determined by the metrics that the RPL
Destination Information Object (DIO) messages advertise.

It should say:

MRHOF works with additive metrics along a route, and
the metrics it uses are determined by the metrics that the RPL
DODAG Information Object (DIO) messages advertise.

Notes:

DIO stands for DODAG Information Object

Errata ID: 4879
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Cenk Gündogan
Date Reported: 2016-12-06
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-01-25

Section 1 says: 

RPL advertises metrics in RPL Destination Information
Object (DIO) messages with a Metric Container suboption.

It should say:

RPL advertises metrics in RPL DODAG Information
Object (DIO) messages with a Metric Container suboption.

Notes:

DIO stands for DODAG Information Object

Errata ID: 5283
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dario Tedeschi
Date Reported: 2018-03-07
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2018-03-14

Section 3.3 says: 

whose paths have a large range of Ranks will likely result in
subptimal routing: nodes might not choose good paths because they are

It should say:

whose paths have a large range of Ranks will likely result in
suboptimal routing: nodes might not choose good paths because they are

Notes:

Incorrect spelling of suboptimal.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search