Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703)
rstangarone-ietf <rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org> Fri, 04 February 2011 04:55 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 9B4D43A6AFF for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 9vo4jE8Bd6wt for <rohc@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from whataboutbob.org (netblock-72-25-108-170.dslextreme.com [72.25.108.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A70A3A6AF8 for <rohc@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4CC8732169; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.75] (unknown [192.168.3.24]) by whataboutbob.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6DE987315C9; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 20:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D4B879C.90402@whataboutbob.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:59:08 -0800
From: rstangarone-ietf <rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110" <sasha.koruga.ctr@navy.mil>
References: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <2FFB75E6EB5AD746A81F398DDF04D7F18C3579@nawespscez02v.nadsuswe.nads.navy.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rohc] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5225 (2703)
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rstangarone-ietf@whataboutbob.org
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, 04 Feb 2011 04:55:48 -0000
I've also discussed this with Sasha offline, I'll take a look at the errata again and give you some input shortly. Bob On 02/03/2011 08:18 AM, Koruga, Sasha M CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 58110 wrote: > 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 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