Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2277)
Robert Stangarone <rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org> Fri, 21 May 2010 13:23 UTC
Return-Path: <rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org>
X-Original-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rohc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 19AC73AA211 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 21 May 2010 06:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.611,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7GOrs0y9Jkw for
<rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 06:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (fed1rmmtao101.cox.net [68.230.241.45])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36573A70A7 for <rohc@ietf.org>;
Fri, 21 May 2010 02:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net
(InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id
<20100521090029.TBBR2579.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>;
Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:29 -0400
Received: from proxy.whataboutbob.org ([70.181.136.249]) by
fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id L90s1e0085P1so60390snr;
Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:52 -0400
X-VR-Score: -80.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=J3o2LjFkw/E22IlEgQUY/UQPCs18Jo95jye/5rN+HKE=
c=1 sm=1 a=acxtWWINnwgA:10 a=hO-oPbc3tlwA:10 a=ORa4HqFjfvEA:10
a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=pjkzafCEHxwb+sheQ3qqNQ==:17 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8
a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=W9s-aqxmAAAA:8 a=K0on_0erCUhmlRPuLIoA:9
a=aUPyiZ7qmD90kq0hauMA:7 a=bFZ-AreTMfdUxiHZhP5Qev_yU2AA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
a=oehdNtOHeC8A:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=zUDZw1waNiIA:10 a=Pk3S22Ty8a4A:10
a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=o-jx0KfhdQsA:10 a=pjkzafCEHxwb+sheQ3qqNQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC554F017B;
Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at whataboutbob.org
Received: from proxy.whataboutbob.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost
(proxy.whataboutbob.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id
TjVqFvJPJGaZ; Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF764F017D;
Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.75] (sentinel.whataboutbob.org [192.168.2.75]) by
proxy.whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E9D24F017B;
Fri, 21 May 2010 05:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BF64BA5.1000501@whataboutbob.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:00:21 -0700
From: Robert Stangarone <rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20100519131406.ACBB1E0655@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100519131406.ACBB1E0655@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 May 2010 00:19:03 -0700
Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de, rohc@ietf.org, rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org,
christou_chris@bah.com, cabo@tzi.org, ietfdbh@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2277)
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>,
<mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>,
<mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:23:05 -0000
I think that this suggestion would be most beneficial to a reader who has a minimal exposure to ROHC and IPSEC. I'm not entirely convinced that it adds much substance to the technical discussion at hand on how a ROHC ICV may be used to prevent undetected decompression failures. That said, I don't think that it detracts from the point which is being made in this section of the document, and therefore I have no objection to this revision. Bob On 05/19/2010 06:14 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5858, > "IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5858&eid=2277 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de> > > Section: 4.2, pg. 7 > > Original Text > ------------- > > BEFORE COMPRESSION AND APPLICATION OF ESP > ---------------------------- > IPv4 |orig IP hdr | | | > |(any options)| TCP | Data | > ---------------------------- > > AFTER ROHCOIPSEC COMPRESSION AND APPLICATION OF ESP > ------------------------------------------------------ > IPv4 | new IP hdr | | Cmpr. | | ROHC | ESP | ESP| > |(any options)| ESP | Hdr. |Data| ICV |Trailer| ICV| > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Figure 1. Example of a ROHCoIPsec-Processed Packet > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > > BEFORE COMPRESSION AND APPLICATION OF ESP > ---------------------------- > IPv4 |orig IP hdr | | | > |(any options)| TCP | Data | > ---------------------------- > > AFTER ROHCOIPSEC COMPRESSION AND APPLICATION OF ESP > ------------------------------------------------------ > IPv4 | new IP hdr | | Cmpr. | | ROHC | ESP | ESP| > |(any options)| ESP | Hdr. |Data| ICV |Trailer| ICV| > | --------------------+===================+------------- > > | Figure 1. Example of a ROHCoIPsec-Processed Packet ( +=====+ in > | the diagram indicates the plaintext that undergoes ESP > | protection; the packet actually contains the ciphertext) > > > Notes > ----- > Rationale: > The lower part of Figure 1 misrepresents the packet format; > in the general case (not ESP NULL encryption), the structure > of the inner part of the ESP tunnel mode packet is hidden by > encryption. > The graphical presentation therefore might mislead the reader. > The suggested Corrected Text tries to avoid this by graphically > marking this part of the packet and adding a short note that the > diagram represents the plaintext structure only. > > Instructions: > ------------- > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5858 (draft-ietf-rohc-ipsec-extensions-hcoipsec-08) > -------------------------------------- > Title : IPsec Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec > Publication Date : May 2010 > Author(s) : E. Ertekin, C. Christou, C. Bormann > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Robust Header Compression > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > _______________________________________________ > Rohc mailing list > Rohc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc > ************************************************************************ > This mail originated from the whataboutbob.org domain. > For any issues related to this mail, or the whataboutbob.org > domain, contact support@whataboutbob.org > > Processed by .25 > ************************************************************************ > ************************************************************************ This mail originated from the whataboutbob.org domain. For any issues related to this mail, or the whataboutbob.org domain, contact support@whataboutbob.org Processed by .254 ************************************************************************
- [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2277) RFC Errata System
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2… Robert Stangarone