[MSEC] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6407 (3598)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 20 April 2013 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: msec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: msec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6202F21F8AE8 for <msec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Duf-nk4MNpsN for <msec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C36E21F8E48 for <msec@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C9F4AB1E003; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: bew@cisco.com, sheela@cisco.com, hardjono@mit.edu, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, turners@ieca.com, bew@cisco.com, vincent.roca@inria.fr
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20130420165520.C9F4AB1E003@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: msec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, claude.brieredelisle@wanadoo.fr
Subject: [MSEC] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6407 (3598)
X-BeenThere: msec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Security List <msec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/msec>
List-Post: <mailto:msec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:56:40 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6407,
"The Group Domain of Interpretation".

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Editorial
Reported by: Claude Briere de L'Isle <claude.brieredelisle@wanadoo.fr>

Section: 5.5.1

Original Text
DST ID Prot (1 octet) -- Value describing an IP protocol ID (e.g.,
      UDP/TCP) [PROT-REG].  A value of zero means that the DST ID Prot
      field MUST be ignored.

Corrected Text
To be removed, this field does not exist

M. Brian Weiss confirmed to me that "The description of "DST ID Prot (1 octet) on Page 32 is incorrect, no such field is meant to be in Figure 8. This is definitely errata. The bullet describing "DST ID Prot (1 octet)" should be removed"

This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

RFC6407 (draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-update-11)
Title               : The Group Domain of Interpretation
Publication Date    : October 2011
Author(s)           : B. Weis, S. Rowles, T. Hardjono
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Multicast Security
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG