Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703)
"Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" <sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil> Thu, 03 February 2011 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil>
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 2DD363A6A14 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 fcPdlUnlgbum for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil (gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil [138.163.0.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171793A6A13 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nawesdnieg05v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.0.161]) by gate1-sandiego.nmci.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6872); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:06:03 -0800
Received: from nawesdnieb10v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.0.10.27]) by nawesdnieg05v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:18:46 -0800
Received: from nawespsceb02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.16]) by nawesdnieb10v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:18:46 -0800
Received: from nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil ([10.1.120.21]) by nawespsceb02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:18:46 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:18:46 -0700
Message-ID: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703)
Thread-Index: AcvDvghACN5KS7jWTzWZs/EKa4nCEw==
From: "Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" <sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil>
To: rohc@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2011 16:18:46.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[084A7110:01CBC3BE]
Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703)
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: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:15:25 -0000
Calle's correction looks good to me. Thank you, Calle. -Sasha On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Carl Knutsson <carl.knutsson@effnet.com> wrote: > Lars, others, > > I have had an on-list discussion with Sasha and an off-list with > Kristofer and I have come up with the suggested correction. The actual > details of the suggestion in the errata haven't been discussed. So I > would like people to review the errata. Comments from the authors would > also be appreciated. > > There are three things that I'd like to point out here: > > 1) There is no ip_id_behavior control field in the FN of RFC 5225. Only > ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. > > 2) Not to include the control field for outer IPv6 headers is the actual > bug fix. There does not exist any ip_id_behavior_outer control field in > the FN for ipv6 (it does for ipv4). > > 3) Excluding the control field for the innermost IPv6 header may be > considered a change and not a correction, but since the whole business > with the ip_id_behavior is not crystal clear... > > So especially number 3) is up for discussion and also my suggestion for > the Corrected Text. > > cheers, > > /Calle > > On 02/03/2011 01:52 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: >> Based on the ongoing discussion, I assume the community consensus is to approve this? >> >> On 2011-2-3, at 14:22, RFC Errata System wrote: >> >>> >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5225, >>> "RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5225&eid=2703 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Type: Technical >>> Reported by: Carl Knutsson <carl.knutsson@effnet.com> >>> >>> Section: 6.6.11 >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> o ip_id_behavior, one octet for each IP header in the compressible >>> >>> header chain starting from the outermost header. Each octet >>> >>> consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> o ip_id_behavior_outer, one octet for each IPv4 header except the >>> >>> innermost in the compressible header chain starting from the outermost >>> >>> header. Each octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>> >>> >>> >>> o ip_id_behavior_innermost, one octet if the innermost header is an >>> >>> IPv4 header. The octet consists of 2 bits padded with 6 MSBs of zeroes. >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> There is no control field called ip_ip_behavior in the document. There are two control fields related to IP-ID behavior, ip_id_behavior_innermost and ip_id_behavior_outer. For IPv6, only the ip_id_behavior_innermost field exists and its value is always IP_ID_BEHAVIOR_RANDOM according to the FN. This makes it impossible to include ip_id_behavior_outer when calculating the crc for IPv6 headers. Furthermore, since the ip_id_behavior_innermost is constant it makes no sense to include it in the crc calculation. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC5225 (draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-rohcv2-profiles-06) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP-Lite >>> Publication Date : April 2008 >>> Author(s) : G. Pelletier, K. Sandlund >>> 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 >
- [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703) RFC Errata System
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… Lars Eggert
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… Carl Knutsson
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… Kristofer Sandlund
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… rstangarone-ietf
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2… Ghyslain Pelletier