[rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2277)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 19 May 2010 13:18 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.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 5686A3A6870 for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.766,
BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 Evrpf0CSQJmj for
<rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 May 2010 06:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF82E3A6C7F for <rohc@ietf.org>;
Wed, 19 May 2010 06:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id ACBB1E0655;
Wed, 19 May 2010 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: ertekin_emre@bah.com, christou_chris@bah.com, cabo@tzi.org,
ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, carl.knutsson@effnet.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20100519131406.ACBB1E0655@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de, rohc@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [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: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:18:57 -0000
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] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2277) RFC Errata System
- Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5858 (2… Robert Stangarone