Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 (3061)
"Gokhale, Gandhar" <Gandhar.Gokhale@lsi.com> Thu, 05 January 2012 08:30 UTC
Return-Path: <Gandhar.Gokhale@lsi.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AAA21F8757 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mrzXJVPQAGDa for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9D921F86B4 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from paledge01.lsi.com ([192.19.193.42]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob125.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTwVfj7J/VuWNcciAlnQ3nc9plfdZKDap@postini.com; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:30:11 PST
Received: from PALHUB01.lsi.com (128.94.213.114) by PALEDGE01.lsi.com (192.19.193.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 03:34:31 -0500
Received: from inbexch01.lsi.com (135.36.98.37) by PALHUB01.lsi.com (128.94.213.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.106.1; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 03:30:06 -0500
Received: from inbmail01.lsi.com ([135.36.98.64]) by inbexch01.lsi.com ([135.36.98.37]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:00:02 +0530
From: "Gokhale, Gandhar" <Gandhar.Gokhale@lsi.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:57:15 +0530
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 (3061)
Thread-Index: AczBZQC27KBGBLIGSXe3RFUXId1/xQKHtPiT
Message-ID: <9181E99F41C081478B455A70FC1D01CB0D8B9DCEA2@inbmail01.lsi.com>
References: <20111223111948.9759872E008@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111223111948.9759872E008@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:07:03 -0800
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 (3061)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:31:29 -0000
Hello, I've submitted 3 errata on RFC 6145 (eid: 3059, 3060 & 3061) on December 23rd, 2011. They are in reported state. I wonder if something needs to be done from my side for these to move to next state (approved/rejected etc). Please let me know when these will be taken up for conclusion. Thanks and Regards, Gandhar Gokhale ________________________________________ From: RFC Errata System [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:49 PM To: xing@cernet.edu.cn; congxiao@cernet.edu.cn; fred@cisco.com; ietfdbh@comcast.net; wes@mti-systems.com; dthaler@microsoft.com; dwing@cisco.com Cc: Gokhale, Gandhar; behave@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 (3061) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6145, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6145&eid=3061 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Gandhar Gokhale <gandhar.gokhale@lsi.com> Section: 5.1.1 Original Text ------------- Fragment Offset: Copied from the Fragment Offset field of the IPv6 Fragment Header. Corrected Text -------------- Fragment Offset: If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is not an extension header (except ESP) then Fragment Offset MUST be copied from the Fragment Offset field of the IPv6 Fragment Header. If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is an extension header (except ESP) then the packet SHOULD be dropped and logged. Notes ----- If the fragmentable part (as described in RFC 2460) of the original unfragmented IPv6 packet had extension headers then the translator can not calculate the offset of the IPv4 fragment for non-initial fragments. If extension headers are present in the fragmentable part then the fragment offset value of the IPv6 header includes length of the extension headers also. Since translator strips of the IPv6 extension headers the fragment offset value set by the sender of IPv6 fragments can not match that received by the IPv4 receiver and the reassembly will fail. For non-initial fragments the translator does not have the knowledge of this delta when there is no state maintained. The legth issue stated in erratum 2 is not in itself sufficient to advocate packet drop. However, the offset issue is sufficient to advocate packet drop as the reassembly is bound to fail. Therefore I'm putting a SHOULD in both cases. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6145 (draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-23) -------------------------------------- Title : IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm Publication Date : April 2011 Author(s) : X. Li, C. Bao, F. Baker Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 (306… RFC Errata System
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 … Gokhale, Gandhar
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 … Alice Hagens
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6145 … Gokhale, Gandhar