IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7413 (4239)

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Fri, 23 January 2015 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A525B1A88FA for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mkZFjE8mhWF9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF7E41A88F5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0NNpANn016724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54C2DE6E.2010505@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:10 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ycheng@google.com, hkchu@google.com, sivasankar@cs.ucsd.edu, arvind@google.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com, michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com, nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp, pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi
References: <20150122232420.282F5187A98@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150122232420.282F5187A98@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/HIJcrysn8B-ycMm8dqor9Ho9nyM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:41:31 -0800
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7413 (4239)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:51:45 -0000

Hi, all,

On 1/22/2015 3:24 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7413,
> "TCP Fast Open".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7413&eid=4239
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Matthew Luckie <mjl@caida.org>
> 
> Section: 4.2.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    1. The client sends a SYN packet with a Fast Open option with a
>       Length field of 0 (empty cookie field).
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    1. The client sends a SYN packet with a Fast Open option with a
>       Length field of 2 (empty cookie field).
> 
> Notes
> -----
> A Nil fast-open option has an option length of 2. 

Agreed.

> A length field of zero would mean an invalid TCP option.

Disagree. The correct reason is, IMO:

	The Nil option has no bytes beyond the Kind and Length
	fields required in all TCP options, and the Length field
	includes the space used for Kind and Length.

The interpretation of an option with a 0 length should not be discussed
in the errata or future updates to this doc; it is out of scope.

(AFAICT, if it were observed, the entire segment would have to be deemed
invalid, not just that individual option. But that's not germane to this
errata).

I suggest the errata be updated accordingly.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email