[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7578)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 29 January 2024 19:56 UTC

To: martenseemann@gmail.com, jri.ietf@gmail.com, mt@lowentropy.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7578)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: zaheduzzaman.sarker@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org, quic@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240129195610.4C5CF3E8CF@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:56:10 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/C4uSumUmUYOSiLAmVgAzXq2rGk8>
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC9000, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7578

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2023-07-30
Held by: Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG)

Section: 17.2.1

Original Text
-------------
                                                       Where QUIC
   might be multiplexed with other protocols (see [RFC7983]), servers
   SHOULD set the most significant bit of this field (0x40) to 1 so that
   Version Negotiation packets appear to have the Fixed Bit field.

Corrected Text
--------------
                                                       Unless the
   server has out-of-band knowledge that clients are not
   demultiplexing QUIC with other protocols (see [RFC7983]), it
   SHOULD set the most significant bit of this field (0x40) to 1 so that
   Version Negotiation packets appear to have the Fixed Bit field.

Notes
-----
Unless operating in a tightly controlled environment, the server has no way of knowing what other protocols the client might be demultiplexing on the same UDP socket. According to the demultiplexing logic defined in RFC 9443, Version Negotiation packets with 0x40 set to 0 would be misclassified as RTP/RTCP.

Looking at the discussion in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/oR4kxGKY6mjtPC1CZegY1ED4beg/ and IETF118  QUIC working group meeting minutes. This needs more discussion to reach a conclusion on the potential solution.

--------------------------------------
RFC9000 (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34)
--------------------------------------
Title               : QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport
Publication Date    : May 2021
Author(s)           : J. Iyengar, Ed., M. Thomson, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : QUIC
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9000 (7578) RFC Errata System