RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 8 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 1459, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", May 1993

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194

Source of RFC: Legacy
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 4091
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Peter Kovacs
Date Reported: 2014-08-23
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-09-17

Section 2.3 says:

The presence of a prefix is indicated with a single leading ASCII
   colon character (':', 0x3b), which must be the first character of the
   message itself.

It should say:

The presence of a prefix is indicated with a single leading ASCII
   colon character (':', 0x3a), which must be the first character of the
   message itself.

Notes:

The ASCII colon character is represented by 0x3A, not 0x3B (which is the semicolon).

Errata ID: 4318
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Lucas Satabin
Date Reported: 2015-03-31
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2015-04-02

Section 1.3 says:

There are two types of channels allowed by this protocol.  One is a
distributed channel which is known to all the servers that are
connected to the network. These channels are marked by the first
character being a only clients on the server where it exists may join
it.  These are distinguished by a leading '&' character.

It should say:

There are two types of channels allowed by this protocol.  One is a
distributed channel, which is known to all the servers that are
connected to the network. These channels are marked by the first
character being a '#'.  The other type of channel is limited to one
server, and only clients on the server where it exists may join
it.  These channels are distinguished by a leading '&' character.

Notes:

There is a missing chunk of text between "being a" and "only clients".

Status: Held for Document Update (5)

RFC 1459, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", May 1993

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194

Source of RFC: Legacy
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 3355
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Stephen Chavez
Date Reported: 2012-09-15
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 4.4.1 says:

The <receiver> parameter may also me a host mask  (#mask)  or  server
   mask  ($mask).  

It should say:

The <receiver> parameter may also be a host mask  (#mask)  or  server
   mask  ($mask).  

Errata ID: 3414
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Kezhu Wang
Date Reported: 2012-11-25
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 4.1.3 says:

The USER message is used at the beginning of connection to specify
the username, hostname, servername and realname of s new user.

It should say:

The USER message is used at the beginning of connection to specify
the username, hostname, servername and realname of a new user.

Errata ID: 3938
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Myunggyun Jonathan Aldo Seo
Date Reported: 2014-03-28
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2014-05-07

Section 4.2.3.1 says:

   When using the 'o' and 'b' options, a restriction on a total of three
   per mode command has been imposed.  That is, any combination of 'o'
   and

It should say:

   When using the 'o' and 'b' options, a restriction on a total of three
   per mode command has been imposed.

Notes:

The sentence lacks the last part and does not explain what it expected to. The change removes the incomplete, useless sentence.

Errata ID: 4854
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Chase Smith
Date Reported: 2016-11-04
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30

Section 6.2 says:

To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting
of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the
server back to the client.  If there is no channel
found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is
returned.  The exception to this is when a NAMES
message is sent with no parameters and all visible
channels and contents are sent back in a series of
RPL_NAMEREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark
the end.

It should say:

To reply to a NAMES message, a reply pair consisting
of RPL_NAMREPLY and RPL_ENDOFNAMES is sent by the
server back to the client.  If there is no channel
found as in the query, then only RPL_ENDOFNAMES is
returned.  The exception to this is when a NAMES
message is sent with no parameters and all visible
channels and contents are sent back in a series of
RPL_NAMREPLY messages with a RPL_ENDOFNAMES to mark
the end.

Notes:

RPL_NAMEREPLY does not exist anywhere else in the document, while RPL_NAMREPLY is used 4 times. This is likely a typo.

----- Verifier Notes -----
One of them is clearly a typo, but a little research shows that implementations differ as to which one they use. Best that this be revisited in the unlikely event that the spec is ever revised.

Errata ID: 5291
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Matías Fachal
Date Reported: 2018-03-20
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30

Section 2.2 says:

Because of IRC's scandanavian origin, the characters {}| are
   considered to be the lower case equivalents of the characters []\,
   respectively.

It should say:

Because of IRC's scandinavian origin, the characters {}| are
   considered to be the lower case equivalents of the characters []\,
   respectively.

Notes:

The demonym for those of the Scandinavian region is "Scandinavian", not "Scandanavian", as far as I know.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 1459, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol", May 1993

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194

Source of RFC: Legacy
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 7029
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: wizzwizz4
Date Reported: 2022-07-19
Rejected by: Orie Steele
Date Rejected: 2024-05-03

Section 4.2.3.2 says:

:MODE WiZ -w                    ; turns reception of WALLOPS messages
                                off for WiZ.

It should say:

MODE WiZ -w                     ; turns reception of WALLOPS messages
                                off for WiZ.

Notes:

:MODE WiZ -w is a WiZ message from MODE, but WiZ is not an IRC command.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Was corrected in subsequent revisions: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2812#section-3.1.5

Report New Errata



Advanced Search