Hi,
Many thanks for catching the error.
The mistake is correctly identified, and the proposed resolution is correct.
That is:
In section 5.1, the incorrect current text:
“This field is optional (since the information may not be available). The
rem_addr_len indicates the length of the user
Hi Rebecca, authors, OPSAWG,
I think that this errata is valid for both 5.1 and 6.1. I also noted a similar
bug for 5.3 for the user_msg_len field. I’ve updated the errata report to also
cover this. My intent is verify this errata.
Authors, OPSAWG, please let me know if you have any opinion
Hi Robert,
We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so
we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set
the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).
Note: A similar
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8907,
"The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7754
