[IPsec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8229 (5320)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 09 April 2018 08:34 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2B8126C19 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 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] 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 ZOYh19pnlRit for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
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 E28491242F7 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E69EDB80DB4; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: tpauly@apple.com, samy.touati@ericsson.com, ramantha@cisco.com, kaduk@mit.edu, ekr@rtfm.com, david.waltermire@nist.gov, kivinen@iki.fi
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: valery@smyslov.net, ipsec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180409083325.E69EDB80DB4@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:33:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/H9TnMYfEoPcTt5PB5PrrIYSagkk>
Subject: [IPsec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8229 (5320)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 08:34:03 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8229, "TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5320 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- TCP provides reliable transport, so there is no need for applications to deal with retransmissions. Moreover, sending retransmissions by IKE in case of TCP on congested networks could further increase congestion and degrade performance. For this reason IKE initiators SHOULD NOT retransmit requests if they are sent over TCP. However, both IKE initiators and responders MUST correctly handle retransmitted messages received over TCP, but responders SHOULD NOT resend response messages in this case. If IKE initiators still choose to retransmit requests over TCP, then the retransmission policy SHOULD be less aggressive than it would have been in case of UDP. Notes ----- While Section 12.2 discusses some implications that TCP transport could have on ESP protocol, the IKE retransmission behavior, described in Section 2.1 of RFC7296, is not redefined by this RFC. This is an oversight and some recommendations for implementers should have been given. The suggested text should be placed in a new section, presumably between sections 8 and 9. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8229 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-10) -------------------------------------- Title : TCP Encapsulation of IKE and IPsec Packets Publication Date : August 2017 Author(s) : T. Pauly, S. Touati, R. Mantha Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [IPsec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8229 (5320) RFC Errata System