[ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC8972 (8592)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 07 October 2025 07:51 UTC

To: hawkins@obs.cr, gregimirsky@gmail.com, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn, hnydell@accedian.com, footer.foote@nokia.com, adi@apple.com, eruffini@outsys.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20251007075103.A14BBC000065@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:51:03 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: SDLN6EWGZDPNI72OOMW2H3J7QEU3VOW6
CC: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, iesg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC8972 (8592)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/AsYmp5zesDmbmLuWgfecx6L_puE>

The following errata report has been verified for RFC8972,
"Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8592

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported by: William Hawkins <hawkins@obs.cr>
Date Reported: 2025-10-04
Verified by: Mohamed Boucadair (IESG)

Section: 4.7

Original Text
-------------
A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Follow-Up Timestamp field.

Corrected Text
--------------
A Session-Reflector might be able to put only an "SW Local" (see
Table 9) timestamp in the Timestamp field of the reflected STAMP
packet (Figure 2).

Notes
-----
Sorry for the back-to-back submissions -- I had these queued up and had delayed submission.

In an earlier version of the RFC, the sentence quoted in the Original Text read

"A Session-Reflector might be able to put in the Timestamp field only a "SW Local" (see Table 6) timestamp."

(see, inter alia, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-02#section-4.7)

I have confirmed with one of the draft's original authors that a simple copy editing error was the cause of this tiny mistake. The sentence at the beginning of section 4.7 is meant to refer to the Timestamp field in the STAMP packet transmitted by the Session Reflector.

The earlier draft of this RFC specified that what is currently named the Follow-Up Timestamp field should be named the Timestamp field. The name collision resulted in an overzealous search/replace hiccup. I hope that having the record reflect the correct field name will save future developers from having to scratch their head like I did.

As usual, I sincerely appreciate the technical accuracy of the authors of the STAMP-related RFCs. As an implementer, the writing and specificity make it easy to build compliant software. I hope that this errata report is helpful for future implementers.

==Verifier note

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/_sK9708NnI79IRif4AFN8LmmkZs/

--------------------------------------
RFC8972 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-10)
--------------------------------------
Title : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions
Publication Date : January 2021
Author(s) : G. Mirsky, X. Min, H. Nydell, R. Foote, A. Masputra, E. Ruffini
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : IP Performance Measurement
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC8972 (8592) RFC Errata System