RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 7285, "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", September 2014
Source of RFC: alto (tsv)
Errata ID: 6874
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohamed BOUCADAIR
Date Reported: 2022-03-08
Verifier Name: Martin Duke
Date Verified: 2022-05-12
Section 14.2 says:
+-------------+---------------------+ | Identifier | Intended Semantics | +-------------+---------------------+ | routingcost | See Section 6.1.1.1 | | priv: | Private use | +-------------+---------------------+ Table 3: ALTO Cost Metrics
It should say:
+-------------+---------------------+ | Identifier | Intended Semantics | +-------------+---------------------+ | routingcost | See Section 6.1.1.1 | +-------------+---------------------+ Table 3: ALTO Cost Metrics Note: Identifiers prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use (see Section 10.6)
Notes:
priv: is not a cost metric but a prefix
Errata ID: 6876
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mohamed BOUCADAIR
Date Reported: 2022-03-09
Verifier Name: Martin Duke
Date Verified: 2022-05-12
Section 14.3 says:
+------------+--------------------+ | Identifier | Intended Semantics | +------------+--------------------+ | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | | priv: | Private use | +------------+--------------------+ Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types
It should say:
+------------+--------------------+ | Identifier | Intended Semantics | +------------+--------------------+ | pid | See Section 7.1.1 | +------------+--------------------+ Table 4: ALTO Endpoint Property Types Note: Identifiers prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use (see Section 10.8.2.)
Notes:
priv: is not an identifier, but a prefix.
Errata ID: 6732
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Samuel Weiler
Date Reported: 2021-11-06
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-01-27
Section 15.3.2 says:
HTTP Digestion Authentication
It should say:
HTTP Digest Authentication
Notes:
I'm classifying this as editorial because the correction is so obvious; feel free to reclassify it.