[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 (PDT)
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