Re: [multipathtcp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6824 (4129)

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Fri, 17 October 2014 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1CA1A90F3 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.215
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 3kwlDsXlbAF6 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052F31A90F4 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C92A2781A4 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:14:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hi2so428281wib.14 for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.74.227 with SMTP id x3mr26563043wiv.15.1413530092833; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.3.82 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141011115953.A3B14181C7D@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20141011115953.A3B14181C7D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:14:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO249yeV=YZnR=3RJN2+xj9LzfeW=W=sf-xqHGcoQj5NhLYGaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7eee1013da0505991fd2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/9kjcJMKgeLKLPncdYCJT9CBQTUU
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:24:24 -0700
Cc: friedrich@haussmann.tel, costin.raiciu@cs.pub.ro, alanford@cisco.com, multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, Mark Handley <m.handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6824 (4129)
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:15:00 -0000

Hi,
I think this errata is right.
Since we're preparing 6824bis, this should be reflected in the new version.
Any thoughts?
--
Yoshi

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:59 AM, RFC Errata System <
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6824,
> "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6824&eid=4129
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Friedrich Haussmann <friedrich@haussmann.tel>
>
> Section: B.1.1.
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> MPTCP.Checksum (flag):  This flag is set to true if at least one of
>       the hosts has set the C bit in the MP_CAPABLE options exchanged
>       during connection establishment, and is set to false otherwise.
>       If this flag is set, the checksum must be computed in all DSS
>       options.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> MPTCP.Checksum (flag):  This flag is set to true if at least one of
>       the hosts has set the A bit in the MP_CAPABLE options exchanged
>       during connection establishment, and is set to false otherwise.
>       If this flag is set, the checksum must be computed in all DSS
>       options.
>
> Notes
> -----
> Checksum is not on bit "C", but instead on bit "A". There are no other
> instances of referring on bit "C" as the checksum. Bit "C" is unassigned in
> this version.
>
> Other instances of bit "A" as checksum:
> * Section 3.1. Connection Initiation, p. 16 f.
> * Section 8. IANA Considerations, Table 3: MPTCP Handshake Algorithms, p.
> 56
>
> 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6824 (draft-ietf-mptcp-multiaddressed-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
> Addresses
> Publication Date    : January 2013
> Author(s)           : A. Ford, C. Raiciu, M. Handley, O. Bonaventure
> Category            : EXPERIMENTAL
> Source              : Multipath TCP
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>