[Errata Rejected] RFC8200 (5170)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 03 February 2020 14:15 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 1FEFA120026; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 06:15:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 jGKMYM_nlZGj; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 06:15:07 -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 B642712007C; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 06:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E96FEF406F2; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 06:14:55 -0800 (PST)
To: fgont@si6networks.com, none@rfc-editor.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC8200 (5170)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: suresh@kaloom.com, iesg@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200203141455.E96FEF406F2@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 06:14:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/le6EAYroEgflnTI0LKGU6KMpzLg>
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, 03 Feb 2020 14:15:09 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8200,
"Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5170

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Date Reported: 2017-10-28
Rejected by: Suresh Krishnan (IESG)

Section: 4.5

Original Text
-------------
              A Fragment Offset containing the offset of the fragment,
              in 8-octet units, relative to the start of the
              Fragmentable Part of the original packet.  The Fragment
              Offset of the first ("leftmost") fragment is 0.

Corrected Text
--------------
              A Fragment Offset containing the offset of the fragment,
              in 8-octet units, relative to the start of the
              "Extension & Upper-Layer Headers" Part of the original 
              packet. The Fragment Offset of the fragment containing
              the "Extension & Upper-Layer Headers" part is 0.

Notes
-----
Clearly, the first fragment will contain a Fragment Offset of 0.

However, given the figure:

---- cut here ----
   original packet:

   +-----------------+-----------------+--------+--------+-//-+--------+
   |  Per-Fragment   |Ext & Upper-Layer|  first | second |    |  last  |
   |    Headers      |    Headers      |fragment|fragment|....|fragment|
   +-----------------+-----------------+--------+--------+-//-+--------+

   fragment packets:

   +------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
   |  Per-Fragment    |Fragment | Ext & Upper-Layer |  first   |
   |    Headers       | Header  |   Headers         | fragment |
   +------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+

   +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+
   |  Per-Fragment    |Fragment|    second                     |
   |    Headers       | Header |   fragment                    |
   +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+
                         o
                         o
                         o
   +------------------+--------+----------+
   |  Per-Fragment    |Fragment|   last   |
   |    Headers       | Header | fragment |
   +------------------+--------+----------+


it is the part market as "Ext & Upper-Layer Headers" the one that will have a Fragment offset of 0, rather than the part marked as "first fragment". For example, one could envision this scenario:

---- cut here ----
   original packet:

   +-----------------+-----------------+---------------+
   |  Per-Fragment   |Ext & Upper-Layer| first & last  |
   |    Headers      |    Headers      |   fragment    |
   +-----------------+-----------------+---------------+

   fragment packets:

   +------------------+---------+-------------------+
   |  Per-Fragment    |Fragment | Ext & Upper-Layer |
   |    Headers       | Header  |   Headers         |
   +------------------+---------+-------------------+

   +------------------+--------+---------------+
   |  Per-Fragment    |Fragment| first & last  |
   |    Headers       | Header |   fragment    |
   +------------------+--------+---------------+

---- cut here ----

Where the first fragment just contains the entire IPv6 header chain, and then second fragment contains the chunk marked as "first fragment" (this "first fragment" part is the only "Fragmentable" part of the packet).

Note: the text "The Fragment Offset of the first ("leftmost") fragment is 0." was re-phrased in the "corrected text", since it might confuse the reader regarding whether it refers to the actual first fragment (i.e. the first packet corresponding to the fragmented datagram), or the chunk marked as "first fragment" in the figure.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
Verifier's Note by Suresh Krishnan (Responsible AD for 6man): The 6man working group has chosen to address the subject of this Erratum and other related Errata using a consolidated fix detailed in the Erratum report #5945. I would like to thank the submitter Fernando Gont for bringing this up. 

--------------------------------------
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