RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 9761, "Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) for TLS and DTLS Profiles for Internet of Things (IoT) Devices", April 2025
Source of RFC: opsawg (ops)
Errata ID: 8817
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Lize Shao
Date Reported: 2026-03-11
Verifier Name: Mahesh Jethanandani
Date Verified: 2026-03-11
Section 5.2 says:
prefix acl-tls
It should say:
prefix ietf-acl-tls
Notes:
The correct prefix name is ietf-acl-tls (see Section 11.1 in RFC9761).
Errata ID: 8818
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Lize Shao
Date Reported: 2026-03-11
Verifier Name: Mahesh Jethanandani
Date Verified: 2026-03-11
Section 7 says:
"matches": {
...
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept"
}
}
It should say:
"matches": {
...
},
"actions": {
"forwarding": "accept"
}
Notes:
"actions" is nested within "matches" in the original text, while they should be in parallel based on RFC8520 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8520.html).
Verifier Notes: In consultation with the authors, this was agreed to be Verified.
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 9761, "Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) for TLS and DTLS Profiles for Internet of Things (IoT) Devices", April 2025
Source of RFC: opsawg (ops)
Errata ID: 8828
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Wenxi Wang
Date Reported: 2026-03-14
Section 7 says:
{
"ietf-mud:mud": {
...
"ietf-access-control-list:acls": {
...
}
}
}
It should say:
{
"ietf-mud:mud": {
...
},
"ietf-access-control-list:acls": {
...
}
}
Notes:
Instead of being nested within "ietf-mud:mud", "ietf-access-control-list:acls" goes parallel to "ietf-mud:mud", both as root objects. This will make it consistent with RFC8520 (see JSON example in Section 9, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8520#section-9).