IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DMM] [Errata Verified] RFC5555 (3463)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 12 January 2024 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C691C14F6BE; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:28:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ymRkNFLQnVh; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05BFEC14F69D; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id D84C01996026; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:28:37 -0800 (PST)
To: r.kuntz@ipflavors.com, hesham@elevatemobile.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: evyncke@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240112082837.D84C01996026@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:28:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/_jThnxskVGaNWNGf14VUU1beMu0>
Subject: [DMM] [Errata Verified] RFC5555 (3463)
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:28:42 -0000

The following errata report has been verified for RFC5555,
"Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3463

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Romain Kuntz <r.kuntz@ipflavors.com>
Date Reported: 2013-01-17
Verified by: Éric Vyncke (IESG)

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text
-------------
with error code 144

Corrected Text
--------------


Notes
-----
Binding acknowledgement error status 144 is referenced in sections 4.4.2 and 4.5 to specify that MN should not use UDP encapsulation. However, there is no mention of this status number in the IANA Considerations section (section 8).

-- Verifier note (EV) ---

The MIPv6 Status code 144 does not appear in https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml#mobility-parameters-6

Even worse, it is actually assigned to MIPV6-ID-MISMATCH by a previous RFC 4285 (and the semantics of MIPV6-ID-MISMATCH probably does not match RFC 5555 semantics).

--------------------------------------
RFC5555 (draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers
Publication Date    : June 2009
Author(s)           : H. Soliman, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Mobility EXTensions for IPv6
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email