IETF Logo Mail Archive

[core] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7252 (5284)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 09 March 2018 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356FC129C6C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:34:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 366mhBC-QJq6 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC88126C83 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 91095B81706; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:34:25 -0800 (PST)
To: zach.shelby@arm.com, hartke@tzi.org, cabo@tzi.org, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, cabo@tzi.org, jaime@iki.fi
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, core@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180309093425.91095B81706@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:34:25 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/nyUA7lAHs4RHOxc7CKqoLhqPHOM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:29:45 -0700
Subject: [core] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7252 (5284)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:34:46 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7252,
"The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5284

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>

Section: 5.3.1

Original Text
-------------
The client SHOULD generate tokens in such a way that tokens currently
in use for a given source/destination endpoint pair are unique.

Corrected Text
--------------
The client SHOULD generate tokens in such a way that tokens currently
in use for a given source/destination endpoint pair are unique per
request.

Notes
-----
Multiple requests may be active for a given source/destination
endpoint pair.  The OLD text is thus broken.

The NEW text is aligned with the definition of the Token:

  A token is intended for use as a client-local identifier for
  differentiating between concurrent requests (see Section 5.3); it
  could have been called a "request ID".

Further, using the same token for a given source/destination endpoint
pair have some implications, for example, for applications which
require the support of multiple observe queries because RFC7641
states the following:

   The entry in the list of observers is keyed by the client endpoint
    and the token specified by the client in the request.  If an entry
    with a matching endpoint/token pair is already present in the list
    (which, for example, happens when the client wishes to reinforce
    its interest in a resource), the server MUST NOT add a new entry
    but MUST replace or update the existing one.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7252 (draft-ietf-core-coap-18)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, C. Bormann
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Constrained RESTful Environments APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email