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