Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 2 records.

Status:Verified (1)

RFC 4919, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", August 2007

Errata ID:1789
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeffrey Wildman
Date Reported: 2009-06-01
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-10

Section 5. Goals says:

   1.  Fragmentation and Reassembly layer: As mentioned in the overview,       the protocol data units may be as small as 81 bytes.  This is       obviously far below the minimum IPv6 packet size of 1280 octets,       and in keeping with Section 5 of the IPv6 specification       [RFC2460], a fragmentation and reassembly adaptation layer must       be provided at the layer below IP.

It should say:

   1.  Fragmentation and Reassembly layer: As mentioned in the overview,       the payload of medium access layer frames may be capped in size (as small        as 81 bytes).  This is obviously far below the minimum IPv6 Maximum        Transmission Unit (MTU) size of 1280 octets, and in keeping with Section 5        of the IPv6 specification [RFC2460], a fragmentation and reassembly        adaptation layer must be provided at the layer below IP.

Notes:

Changed 'protocol data units' to 'medium access layer frames' for clarity.

Changed 'may be as small as 81 bytes' to 'may be capped in size (as small as 81 bytes)'. We are highlighting the fact that link layer payloads can't exceed some size X, while we are also expecting IPv6 packets much larger than X bytes to be pushed down to the link layer. (Hence the requirement for fragmentation and reassembly mechanisms at the link layer.)

'minimum IPv6 packet size of 1280 octets' changed to 'minimum IPv6 MTU size of 1280 octets'. In the IPv6 specification [RFC 2460], Section 5 'Packet Size Issues' says that the minimum allowable IPv6 MTU is 1280 octets. This is not equivalent to saying that the minimum IPv6 packet size is 1280 bytes (as suggested in the original text in RFC 4919).

Status:Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4919, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", August 2007

Errata ID:1032
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-09-09
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

(1)  Section 1 -- minor textual flawThe second paragraph of Section 1, on page 2 of RFC 4919, says:   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and the above, and   spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.  [...]Perhaps, it should better say:   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and the layers   above, and spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.   [...]or shorter:   This document gives an overview of LoWPANs and describes how they   benefit from IP and, in particular, IPv6 networking.  It describes|  LoWPAN requirements with regards to the IP layer and above, and   spells out the underlying assumptions of IP for LoWPANs.  [...](2)  Section 2 -- minor indentation flawNear the top of page 3, Section 2 of RFC 4919 contains the numberedbullet:       v|  7.  Large number of devices expected to be deployed during the        lifetime of the technology.  This number is expected to dwarf        the number of deployed personal computers, for example.This should perhaps better have been formatted as:       vv|  7.   Large number of devices expected to be deployed during the        lifetime of the technology.  This number is expected to dwarf        the number of deployed personal computers, for example.(3)  Sections 5 and 8.2 -- misleading reference tagApparently during a last minute change before publication, an attempthas been made to update the references to the most current versionsavailable, and that has resulted in the misfortunate introductioninto the text (Section 5, first line on page 8, and Section 8.2,second entry), of the improper and misleading reference tag,'[6LoWPAN]', in place of an appropriate and mnemonic reference taglike '[RFC2462bis]' for to-be-RFC4862.(4)  Section 8.2 -- wrong Informative Reference givenThe RFC text in Section 5 (bullet 5. on page 8) makes reference tothe SNMPv3 umbrella document, RFC 3410, using the tag '[RFC3410]'.But in place of the proper citation of RFC 3410, Section 8.2contains an unexpected quotation to RFC 3411, tagged '[RFC3411]';the latter tag does not appear anywhere else in the RFC text.Therefore, the entry [RFC3411] should have been replaced by anentry [RFC3410] !

Report New Errata