[Roll] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6550 (6554)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 22 April 2021 20:22 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777B83A14F6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m32GJqRhxWVB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FF363A14F3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 673B6F407C8; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: wintert@acm.org, pthubert@cisco.com, abr@sdesigns.dk, jhui@archrock.com, kelsey@ember.com, pal@cs.stanford.edu, kpister@dustnetworks.com, rstruik.ext@gmail.com, jpv@cisco.com, roger.alexander@cooperindustries.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, dominique.barthel@orange.com, mariainesrobles@googlemail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: nmalykh@ieee.org, roll@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210422202149.673B6F407C8@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:21:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/EwjXoPirBduG26iQEj5IzeT45z0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:34:23 -0700
Subject: [Roll] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6550 (6554)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:22:01 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6554 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org> Section: 9.9 Original Text ------------- 2. The node MUST logically construct groupings of its DAO parents while populating the Path Control field, where each group consists of DAO parents of equal preference. Those groups MUST then be ordered according to preference, which allows for a logical mapping of DAO parents onto Path Control subfields (see Figure 27). Groups MAY be repeated in order to extend over the entire bit width of the patch control field, but the order, including repeated groups, MUST be retained so that preference is properly communicated. Corrected Text -------------- 2. The node MUST logically construct groupings of its DAO parents while populating the Path Control field, where each group consists of DAO parents of equal preference. Those groups MUST then be ordered according to preference, which allows for a logical mapping of DAO parents onto Path Control subfields (see Figure 27). Groups MAY be repeated in order to extend over the entire bit width of the path control field, but the order, including repeated groups, MUST be retained so that preference is properly communicated. Notes ----- Typo - patch instead of path Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6550 (draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19) -------------------------------------- Title : RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks Publication Date : March 2012 Author(s) : T. Winter, Ed., P. Thubert, Ed., A. Brandt, J. Hui, R. Kelsey, P. Levis, K. Pister, R. Struik, JP. Vasseur, R. Alexander Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Roll] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6550 (6554) RFC Errata System