Found 3 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 7110, "Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping", January 2014

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7737

Errata ID: 4197
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: tom petch
Date Reported: 2014-12-09
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-12-09

Section 4 says:

The Reply Path TLV contains one or more nested sub-TLVs that can be
used

It should say:

The Reply Path TLV contains zero or more nested sub-TLVs that can be
used

Notes:

As section 4.2 correctly states, the Reply Path TLV can contain zero
sub-TLVs; this brings section 4 inline.

Errata ID: 4195
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: tom petch
Date Reported: 2014-12-09
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-12-09

Section 5.4 says:

When an echo reply is received, if the Reply Mode is "Reply via
Specified Path" and the Reply Path return code is "The echo reply was
sent successfully using the specified Reply Path", and if the return
path is an MPLS LSP.  The ingress LSR MUST perform FEC validation
(based on the FEC Stack information of the return path carried in the
Reply Path TLV) as an egress LSR does when receiving an echo request,
the FEC validation process (relevant to "ping" mode) defined in
Section 4.4.1 of [RFC4379] applies here.

When an echo reply is received with return code set to "Malformed
echo request received" and the Subcode set to zero.  It is possible
that the egress LSR may not know the "Reply via Specified Path" Reply
Mode, the operator may choose to re-perform another LSP ping by using
one of the four Reply Modes defined [RFC4379].

It should say:

When an echo reply is received, if the Reply Mode is "Reply via
Specified Path" and the Reply Path return code is "The echo reply was
sent successfully using the specified Reply Path", and if the return
path is an MPLS LSP, the ingress LSR MUST perform FEC validation
(based on the FEC Stack information of the return path carried in the
Reply Path TLV) as an egress LSR does when receiving an echo request,
the FEC validation process (relevant to "ping" mode) defined in
Section 4.4.1 of [RFC4379] applies here.

When an echo reply is received with return code set to "Malformed
echo request received" and the Subcode set to zero, it is possible
that the egress LSR may not know the "Reply via Specified Path" Reply
Mode; the operator may choose to re-perform another LSP ping by using
one of the four Reply Modes defined in [RFC4379].

Notes:

In the first two paragraphs of section 5.4, the conditional clauses and the main clause have been separated by periods, not commas, which creates uncertainty as to whether or not text of the main clause has been elided. This changes the periods into commas.

Errata ID: 4196
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: tom petch
Date Reported: 2014-12-09
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-12-09

Section 4.3.1 says:

the recommended type value is 26.

It should say:

the type value is 26.

Notes:

The WG commended a value of 26 to IANA for the "IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV
Type" which IANA confirmed. Leaving in the 'recommended' introduces a
element of uncertainty that is best avoided.

Report New Errata