[IPsec] One more editorial issue in RFC5996

"Valery Smyslov" <svanru@gmail.com> Tue, 22 October 2013 05:50 UTC

Return-Path: <svanru@gmail.com>
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 9FDCA11E8140 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x8rW8T8ayR42 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC77611E8115 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id o14so2086606lbi.14 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=di8c+y0u+7nurx3jNXwe8qhlWTeUmaw5hoevpEjChZ0=; b=G2QUWhfYcsCt/qyqf4sCcOCUGuNgRi7eayIjI2eKDoOOwjOBtGYgm7RUjHHZgHNs4Q BmLk4YI+uLfZCCHd/LHWLDsvjymT8WsAiHZQM52XeFS3YT65/ulHP80bXUws4MCbPCbZ 62YIN39dnCmXEPRAzCqR9wowpozse71+R7lxQcwiv8gFsZaPT+xizmMSLIpdMsOpser5 i5gtB8/yIu9LDq/Jc1AF/AR9Y13r0O3vJL5GBoMrAYc+BHPbn9wNwg+8WMlCfpgU6rPL WESwJICxBDoYy9iJpgHf5wr2YJ9SzmKljbTbo+XQBNXkdr8HjZsaIbHUCB6xCF61HanZ 3FCg==
X-Received: by 10.152.120.73 with SMTP id la9mr16469631lab.3.1382421027933; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from buildpc ([93.188.44.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m13sm14573842lbo.11.2013.10.21.22.50.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2FA74E8177C2445E82D929E4857FA377@buildpc>
From: Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, ipsec@ietf.org
References: <21087.60447.758422.672867@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <7C1EFED8998C4309B562F2224DD39AA2@buildpc>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:50:24 +0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Subject: [IPsec] One more editorial issue in RFC5996
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:50:29 -0000

Hi, 

Just came across one more small editorial issue in RFC5996.
Page 73, description of "Next Payload" field, sentence

      In the header of an Encrypted payload, the Next Payload field is set
      to the payload type of the first contained payload (instead of 0);
      conversely, the Next Payload field of the last contained payload
      is set to zero).  

has extra round bracket at the end.

Regards,
Valery.