Subject: RFC 4113 errata

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:09:21 +0200 (MESZ)

Hello,

in the new RFC 4113 edited by you I found two texual issues
in DESCRIPTION clauses of the MIB module that both look like
the result of re-use of text from other places with the due
changes applied incompletely to the copied text.

(1) The DESCRIPTION clause of 'udpEndpointRemoteAddressType',
    at the bottom of page 10,

      "The address type of udpEndpointRemoteAddress.  Only
       IPv4, IPv4z, IPv6, and IPv6z addresses are expected, or
       unknown(0) if datagrams for all remote IP addresses are
       accepted. ..."
                               ^^^
    (borrowed from 'udpEndpointLocalAddressType' DESCRIPTION)
    probably should read:

      "The address type of udpEndpointRemoteAddress.  Only
       IPv4, IPv4z, IPv6, and IPv6z addresses are expected, or
       unknown(0) if datagrams from all remote IP addresses are
       accepted. ..."
                               ^^^^

(2) The DESCRIPTION clause of 'udpEndpointRemotePort', on page 11
    says (borrowed from 'udpEndpointRemoteAddress' DESCRIPTION):

      "The remote port number for this UDP endpoint.  If
       datagrams from any remote system are to be accepted,
       this value is zero."
                                 ^^^^^^
    It should say:

      "The remote port number for this UDP endpoint.  If
       datagrams from any remote port are to be accepted,
       this value is zero."
                                 ^^^^

If you agree, I propose to submit an RFC Errata Note to the
RFC Editor.

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+