From nobody Mon Apr 3 05:29:36 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501D9C151B34 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.202 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=trammell.ch 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 s-GFp0mC7ozW for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 05:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bc0f.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-bc0f.mail.infomaniak.ch [45.157.188.15]) (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 AE792C14EB1E for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 05:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (unknown [10.4.36.108]) by smtp-2-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Pqqvq2JXmzMqR7T; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:29:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown by smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4Pqqvl0PzzzMq20v; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:29:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=trammell.ch; s=20191114; t=1680524967; bh=AKug0eUUvdE5V0+etrvrog3fQ/89M14xMwjBWuepjRw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=hoPd2v05wPPqHm3mDO5tBEypVaB61L9/NTAgku2MJRa+Y6gZbACZTFv6MadZQ5Ecg 3i/jwsp3AJ66pxQA9+n67DzFGpvvkYy8MdgCtazevsPC9FOAdo3mtBPctdPEkFooax kDHaG/NgFabiTdi3Vzr+6AVI36LcXewwOdd3ir0E= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\)) From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" In-Reply-To: <20230402231741.D199456691@rfcpa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:29:22 +0200 Cc: bclaise@cisco.com, trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch, paitken@cisco.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu, mwd@cert.org, ipfix@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20230402231741.D199456691@rfcpa.amsl.com> To: RFC Errata System X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.3) X-Infomaniak-Routing: alpha Archived-At: Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7011 (7413) X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 12:29:35 -0000 On first glance, this seems (1) correct and (2) a useful clarification, = and superior to both of the other proposed possible fixes. So I think = this one can be verified. > On 3 Apr 2023, at 01:17, RFC Errata System = wrote: >=20 > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7011, > "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for = the Exchange of Flow Information". >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7413 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Michael Duggan >=20 > Section: 3.4.1 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > Field Count >=20 > Number of fields in this Template Record. >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > Field Count >=20 > Number of fields in this Template Record. The Field Count MUST = NOT be zero. >=20 > The sum of the Field Lengths of the Field Specifiers of a Template = Record MUST NOT be zero. >=20 > Notes > ----- > If the size of data record corresponding to a template can ever be = zero, then the only valid size for such a data set is the size of the = set header. For normal cases any size greater than that of the set = header is a valid size, since records are read from a set until the = number of octets remaining is less than the smallest possible record = size for that set. If a record size can be zero, then any number of = bytes past the header cannot be padding (is not smaller than the = smallest record), and a conforming implementation might return an = infinite number of zero-sized records. As this could cause a denial of = service situation, rejecting templates that define zero-sized records = seems to be the simplest solution. >=20 > Similar text may be necessary for Option Template records, though the = fact that the scope count MUST be non-zero may negate the necessity. >=20 > Other possible fixes: > * Require all Field Specifiers to have a non-zero Field Length. This = may be an even simpler solution, but I can envision uses for zero-sized = data elements, especially for elements that MAY be of variable length. > * Require a conforming implementation to reject or ignore data sets = for zero-sized templates. >=20 > 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 =20 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC7011 (draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export = (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information > Publication Date : September 2013 > Author(s) : B. Claise, Ed., B. Trammell, Ed., P. Aitken > Category : INTERNET STANDARD > Source : IP Flow Information Export > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix