[ippm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6038 (6408)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 25 January 2021 08:05 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 689623A0C6C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:05:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 EC-qhGWAQ6qM for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:05:37 -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 BF2713A0C6A for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E607AF4074C; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:05:36 -0800 (PST)
To: acmorton@att.com, lencia@att.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, ianswett@google.com, tpauly@apple.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: nmalykh@ieee.org, ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210125080536.E607AF4074C@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:05:36 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/OIM-o_TM7uKp0cv9GWLOEyI7Pyk>
Subject: [ippm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6038 (6408)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:05:39 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6038, "Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6408 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org> Section: 5.1.3 Original Text ------------- When using the truncation process in TWAMP alone, see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357], the Session-Sender MUST append sufficient Packet Padding octets to allow the same IP packet payload lengths to be used in each direction of transmission (this is usually desirable). To compensate for the Session-Reflector's larger test packet format, the Session-Sender MUST append at least 27 octets of padding in Unauthenticated mode, and at least 56 octets in Authenticated and Encrypted modes. The sizes of TWAMP-Test protocol packets and the resulting truncated padding to achieve equal packet sizes in both directions are shown in the table below: Morton & Ciavattone Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 6038 Reflect Octets & Symmetric Size October 2010 +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Octets in: | Unauthenticated Mode | Auth/Encrypted Mode | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Reflector Header | 41 | 104 | | Sender Header | 14 | 48 | | Truncated Padding | 27 | 56 | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ TWAMP-Test Padding Truncation When using the Reflect Octets mode simultaneously with the truncation process that TWAMP recommends in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357], the Session-Sender MUST append at least 27 octets of padding plus the Length of the padding to reflect octets when operating in Unauthenticated mode. The Session-Sender MUST append at least 56 octets of padding plus the Length of the padding to reflect octets when operating in Authenticated and Encrypted modes. Corrected Text -------------- When using the truncation process in TWAMP alone, see Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357], the Session-Sender MUST append sufficient Packet Padding octets to allow the same IP packet payload lengths to be used in each direction of transmission (this is usually desirable). To compensate for the Session-Reflector's larger test packet format, the Session-Sender MUST append at least 27 octets of padding in Unauthenticated mode, and at least 64 octets in Authenticated and Encrypted modes. The sizes of TWAMP-Test protocol packets and the resulting truncated padding to achieve equal packet sizes in both directions are shown in the table below: Morton & Ciavattone Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 6038 Reflect Octets & Symmetric Size October 2010 +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Octets in: | Unauthenticated Mode | Auth/Encrypted Mode | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Reflector Header | 41 | 112 | | Sender Header | 14 | 48 | | Truncated Padding | 27 | 64 | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ TWAMP-Test Padding Truncation When using the Reflect Octets mode simultaneously with the truncation process that TWAMP recommends in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357], the Session-Sender MUST append at least 27 octets of padding plus the Length of the padding to reflect octets when operating in Unauthenticated mode. The Session-Sender MUST append at least 64 octets of padding plus the Length of the padding to reflect octets when operating in Authenticated and Encrypted modes. Notes ----- Incorrect header sizes (104 instead of 112) and the required padding size (56 instead of 64) for modes with authentication and encryption. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC6038 (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-09) -------------------------------------- Title : Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features Publication Date : October 2010 Author(s) : A. Morton, L. Ciavattone Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [ippm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6038 (6408) RFC Errata System