[Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (6003)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 02 March 2020 21:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7153A0834 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:00:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 OsG7OwVxFbgL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:00:46 -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 10F693A1196 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5B207F4071E; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:00:26 -0800 (PST)
To: none@rfc-editor.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, suresh@kaloom.com, evyncke@cisco.com, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (6003)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: fgont@si6networks.com, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200302210026.5B207F4071E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:00:26 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O1CPPcvrIPb-LeovwBAppEC0s6E>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:00:54 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8200, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6003 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is not inserted or deleted, but may be examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. The Hop-by-Hop Options header, when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header. Its presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field of the IPv6 header. Corrected Text -------------- The source node of a packet, identified by the source address, may include extension headers in a packet when it is created. Extension headers must not be inserted or removed or have their length altered by any node for the lifetime of the IPv6 packet. Note that it follows from these requirements that the length of an IPv6 packet cannot change once the packet has been created by the source node. The aforementioned rules apply to all IPv6 extension headers. Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header, a Routing Header, or a Destination Options header preceding a Routing Header) are not processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the final destination node (or each of the set of final destination nodes, in the case of multicast). For packets that do not include a Routing Header, the final destination node is identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. For packets that include a Routing Header, the final destination node is identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header only when the Segments Left field of the Routing Header is 0. The Hop-by-Hop Options header may be examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the final destination node (or each of the set of final destination nodes, in the case of multicast). The Hop-by-Hop Options header, when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header. Its presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field of the IPv6 header. A Destination Options header preceding a Routing Header is processed only by the destination node (or each of the set of destination nodes, in the case of multicast) identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. This means that a Destination Options header preceding a Routing Header will be processed by the first destination of the packet (specified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header at the source node) and by each node listed in the Routing Header. A Routing Header is processed only by the destination node (or each of the set of destination nodes, in the case of multicast) identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. This means that a Routing Header will be processed by the first destination of the packet (specified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header at the source node) and by each node listed in the Routing Header. Notes ----- This erratum addresses the following problems from RFC8200: * It clarifies that IPv6 does not support en-route insertion/removal of IPv6 Extension Headers * Clarifies the the processing rules for Routing Headers and Destination Options headers preceding a Routing Header. RATIONALE: IPv6 never supported the en-route insertion/removal of IPv6 Extension Headers, since it would have broken a number of IPv6 core components, including: * IPsec Authentication Header (AH) * Path-MTU Discovery for IPv6 (RFC8201) * Error reporting based on ICMPv6 error messages (RFC4443), since hosts validate that received error messages correspond to packets sent by the host receiving the error message. It was the intent of RFC8200 to clarify this behavior, as noted by Appendix B ("Changes Since RFC 2460") of RFC8200: o Clarified that extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path. however, the resulting text was far from perfect. This erratum means to more closely reflect and respect the intent of RFC8200. The corrected text has benefited from the review and input from Ron Bonica, Brian Carpenter, and Tom Herbert. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8200 (draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-13) -------------------------------------- Title : Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification Publication Date : July 2017 Author(s) : S. Deering, R. Hinden Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : IPv6 Maintenance Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (6003) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (6003) Fernando Gont