Errata

Status:

Verified

Type:

Editorial

Reported By:

Mahesh

Date Reported:

2010-12-10

Verified by:

Adrian Farrel

Date Verified:

2011-01-28

Section 4.3.3.1 says:

The path between a loose node and its preceding node MAY include other network nodes that are not part of the strict node or its preceding abstract node.

It should say:

The path between a loose node and its preceding node MAY include other network nodes that are not part of the loose node or its preceding abstract node.

Notes:

Narration incorrectly refers to "strict" node while describing "loose" node.

Status:

Held for Document Update

Type:

Editorial

Reported By:

Ramakrishna DTV

Date Reported:

2016-07-06

Held for Document Update by:

Deborah Brungard

Date Held for Document Update:

2016-07-12

Section 4.3.2 says:

   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   set of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node consists
   of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

It should say:

   To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract
   node.  Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a
   sequence of abstract nodes to be traversed.  If an abstract node 
   consists of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node.

Notes:

s/set/sequence

A set implies ordering of abstract nodes is NOT important.
A sequence implies ordering of abstract nodes IS important.

In the rest of RFC 3209, this distinction is maintained, but not
in this paragraph.