RFC Errata
Found 6 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 8881, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", August 2020
Source of RFC: nfsv4 (tsv)
Errata ID: 7324
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: YangJing
Date Reported: 2023-01-29
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2023-01-30
Section 4.2.3 says:
FH4_VOL_RENAME The filehandle will expire during rename. This
includes a rename by the requesting client or a rename by any
other client. If FH4_VOL_ANY is set, FH4_VOL_RENAME is redundant.
It should say:
FH4_VOL_RENAME The filehandle will expire during rename. This
includes a rename by the requesting client or a rename by any
other client. If FH4_VOLATILE_ANY is set, FH4_VOL_RENAME
is redundant.
Notes:
FH4_VOL_ANY is not defined in this document. It should be FH4_VOLATILE_ANY
Status: Reported (5)
RFC 8881, "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", August 2020
Source of RFC: nfsv4 (tsv)
Errata ID: 6308
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Calum Mackay
Date Reported: 2020-10-16
Section 18.32.3 says:
* The server MUST commit the data at a level at least as high as
that committed.
It should say:
* The server MUST commit the data at a level at least as high as
that requested.
Notes:
The meaning is probably obvious, but perhaps a MUST ought
to be unambiguous?
---
editorial: also, the point above this one uses the word "stronger"
where this point uses "high", both for the stability level.
The two lines should probably use the same word.
Errata ID: 6337
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Charles Lever
Date Reported: 2020-11-16
Section 18.33.1 says:
struct gss_cb_handles4 {
rpc_gss_svc_t gcbp_service; /* RFC 2203 */
gsshandle4_t gcbp_handle_from_server;
gsshandle4_t gcbp_handle_from_client;
};
It should say:
struct gss_cb_handles4 {
rpc_gss_service_t gcbp_service; /* RFC 2203 */
gsshandle4_t gcbp_handle_from_server;
gsshandle4_t gcbp_handle_from_client;
};
Notes:
RFC 2203 (and its successors) do not define rpc_gss_svc_t. I believe the rpc_gss_service_t type was intended.
Errata ID: 6865
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: David Noveck
Date Reported: 2022-02-28
Section 18.25.4 says:
The server MUST NOT delete the directory entry if the reply from OPEN had the flag OPEN4_RESULT_PRESERVE_UNLINKED set.
It should say:
If the reply from OPEN had the flag OPEN4_RESULT_PRESERVE_UNLINKED set, The server MUST NOI delete the file contents until each directory entry is deleted and the file is no longer open.
Notes:
The existing second and third bullets are directly contradictory.
Errata ID: 7386
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Pali Rohár
Date Reported: 2023-03-13
Section 18.46.3. says:
Operations
other than SEQUENCE, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, EXCHANGE_ID,
CREATE_SESSION, and DESTROY_SESSION, MUST NOT appear as the first
operation in a COMPOUND.
It should say:
Operations
other than SEQUENCE, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, EXCHANGE_ID,
CREATE_SESSION, DESTROY_SESSION, and DESTROY_CLIENTID, MUST NOT
appear as the first operation in a COMPOUND.
Notes:
Section 18.50.3. DESCRIPTION of DESTROY_CLIENTID says
"DESTROY_CLIENTID MAY be preceded with a SEQUENCE"
and also says
"If DESTROY_CLIENTID is not prefixed by SEQUENCE, it MUST be the only operation in the COMPOUND request"
which implies that DESTROY_CLIENTID can appear as the first (and the only) operation in a COMPOUND.
Errata ID: 6611
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Seman.Shen
Date Reported: 2021-06-16
Section 18.37.3 says:
* Otherwise, the error CB_BACK_CHAN_BUSY SHOULD be returned to indicate that there are CB_COMPOUNDs that need to be replied to.
It should say:
* Otherwise, the error NFS4ERR_BACK_CHAN_BUSY SHOULD be returned to indicate that there are CB_COMPOUNDs that need to be replied to.
Notes:
CB_BACK_CHAN_BUSY is not defined in this document.