Re: [IPsec] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7296 (6940)

[Chris Smiley <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial.  
Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata 
report to “Technical”.  As Stream Approver, please review and set the 
Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/).

You may review the report at: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6940

Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further 
information on how to verify errata reports.

Further information on errata can be found at: 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/cs

> On Apr 21, 2022, at 9:31 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7296,
> "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6940
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: warren.wang <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 3.10
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> o SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by the
> IPsec protocol ID or zero if no SPI is applicable. For a
> notification concerning the IKE SA, the SPI Size MUST be zero and
> the field must be empty.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> o SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by the
> IPsec protocol ID or zero if no SPI is applicable. For a
> notification concerning the IKE SA, the SPI Size MUST be zero and
> the SPI field must be empty.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> the field must be empty -> the SPI field must be empty
> 
> so for a notification concerning the IKE SA, the Protocol ID field still shall be zero?(According to the last sentence of Protocol ID section:"If the SPI field is empty, this field MUST be sent as zero and MUST be ignored on receipt".)
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7296 (draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis-04)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)
> Publication Date    : October 2014
> Author(s)           : C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen, T. Kivinen
> Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
> Source              : IP Security Maintenance and Extensions
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>