Re: [Mip4] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5944 (4133)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 21 October 2014 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508881A8967 for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham
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 Nq80ajfsuK5K for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D1A11A8904 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25424880F3; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720C271B0001; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54468970.5060802@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:27:28 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Martin, Jack" <Jack.Martin@spirent.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "charliep@computer.org" <charliep@computer.org>, "ted.lemon@nominum.com" <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, "henrik@levkowetz.com" <henrik@levkowetz.com>, "mccap@petoni.org" <mccap@petoni.org>
References: <20141017130258.E925E181C85@rfc-editor.org> <54465EA9.6080600@innovationslab.net> <E6098DE6F2C28C49BB723BBE7736E77E25985A@SPCCOREXCMBX01.AD.SPIRENTCOM.COM>
In-Reply-To: <E6098DE6F2C28C49BB723BBE7736E77E25985A@SPCCOREXCMBX01.AD.SPIRENTCOM.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxc2pgNCiXkseh3IQvtoRTjeuHSk2pp96"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mip4/vKlrNS4h3rxm4sDdshg7uwJDNcs
Cc: "mip4@ietf.org" <mip4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5944 (4133)
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:27:43 -0000

Hi Jack,
     No, I think 1.10 needs to reference the 254 value as well.  I
believe the long extension format is the only way to carry 255 bytes of
extension data.  The short extension format (section 1.11) will carry up
to 254 bytes.  The long extension is needed for any value greater than that.

Regards,
Brian

On 10/21/14 11:32 AM, Martin, Jack wrote:
> If I understood your comment correctly you are going to change the to 254 instead of
> the proposed 255 for section 1.10.
> 
> For section 1.10 I believe that 255 is the correct value.   It is section 1.11 in which the
> value should be 254 (which was noted in the second erratum I submitted).
> 
> Regards,
> Jack
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:25 AM
> To: RFC Errata System; charliep@computer.org; ted.lemon@nominum.com; henrik@levkowetz.com; mccap@petoni.org
> Cc: Martin, Jack; mip4@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5944 (4133)
> 
> All,
> 
> On 10/17/14 9:02 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5944, "IP 
>> Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5944&eid=4133
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Jack Martin <jack.martin@spirent.com>
>>
>> Section: 1.10
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> This format is applicable for non-skippable extensions that carry 
>> information of more that 256 bytes.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Since the Length field is 16 bits wide, the extension data can exceed
>> 256 bytes in length.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> This format is applicable for non-skippable extensions that carry 
>> information of more that 255 bytes.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Since the Length field is 16 bits wide, the extension data can exceed
>> 255 bytes in length.
> 
> Henrik noted that the correct value here should be 254 (as noted in the follow-on erratum).
> 
> I will correct the correction and mark this as Verified.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
>