[ippm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8250 (7601)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 29 August 2023 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86841C151089; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 e-kizBc_ETLW; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [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 D8E60C15198E; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 910DA563F6; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: lonvick.ietf@gmail.com, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, rhamilton@cas.org, mackermann@bcbsm.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230829141714.910DA563F6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 07:17:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/1G7a9OAEERo0aCznU8hUdEXvpo8>
Subject: [ippm] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8250 (7601)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:17:23 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC8250, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7601

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2023-08-12
Held by: Martin Duke (IESG)

Section: 3.2.1

Original Text
-------------
This field is initialized at a random number and incremented
monotonically for each packet of the session flow of the
5-tuple.  The random-number initialization is intended to make
it harder to spoof and insert such packets.

Corrected Text
--------------
This field is initialized at a random number and incremented
sequentially for each packet of the session flow of the
5-tuple.  The random-number initialization is intended to make
it harder to spoof and insert such packets.

Notes
-----
The term monotonically increasing just means that the value must not decrease; it does not mean that it must increase. For example a monotonically increasing sequence may be: 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2. On the other hand, a sequentially increasing example would be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. I believe that the authors intended for the value to increase sequentially for each packet.

--------------------------------------
RFC8250 (draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option
Publication Date    : September 2017
Author(s)           : N. Elkins, R. Hamilton, M. Ackermann
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : IP Performance Measurement
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG