Found 3 records.

Status: Reported (2)

RFC 9171, "Bundle Protocol Version 7", January 2022

Errata ID: 7272
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, HTML
Reported By: Brian Sipos
Date Reported: 2022-12-12

Section 4.2.5.1.1 says:

dtn-hier-part = "//" node-name name-delim demux ; a path-rootless

node-name = reg-name

demux = *VCHAR

It should say:

dtn-hier-part = "//" node-name name-delim demux [ "?" query ]

node-name = reg-name

demux = path-rootless / path-empty

Notes:

The demux portion of an EID should match only URI path segments and not match query or fragment URI parts. A fragment part should not actually be sent as encoded EID to be consistent with other URI uses (e.g. HTTP). The administrative endpoint is the allowed empty demux path.

Errata ID: 7337
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Carsten Bormann
Date Reported: 2023-02-06

Section Appendix B says:

   ; Actual CBOR data embedded in a byte string, with optional tag to
   indicate so.
 
...
 
   ; Extension block type, which does not specialize other than the
   code/number

...

   payload-block = payload-block-structure .within canonical-block-
   structure

It should say:

   ; Actual CBOR data embedded in a byte string, with optional tag to
   ; indicate so.

... 
 
   ; Extension block type, which does not specialize other than the
   ; code/number

...

   payload-block = payload-block-structure .within
                   canonical-block-structure

Notes:

Various line breaking events cause syntax errors while parsing Appendix B.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 9171, "Bundle Protocol Version 7", January 2022

Errata ID: 7881
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: John Huff
Date Reported: 2024-04-03
Held for Document Update by: Erik Kline
Date Held: 2024-04-07

Section 6.1.1 says:

   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR Boolean
   value.

It should say:

   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR simple
   value.  A value of 'true' SHALL be encoded as a CBOR simple value
   with additional information 21.  A value of 'false' SHALL be encoded
   as a CBOR simple value with additional information 20.

Notes:

The CBOR spec does not define a 'Boolean' type (RFC8949). It's become common practice to encode boolean values as simple values (major type 7), with additional information 21 indicating 'true' and additional information 20 indicating 'false' (RFC9254, RFC8152). However, this should be explicitly stated for clarity.

--- comments ---

The original text refers to "Boolean values" and not to any "Boolean type"; it is technically correct as is.

As noted, CBOR doesn't have a specific "type" per se for a Boolean, but RFC 8948 S3.3 clearly specifies an encoding for `true` and `false`.

That said, there might be room here for additional clarity for implementers if there is ever to be a 9171bis.

Report New Errata