[tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5961 (5068)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 12 July 2017 17:03 UTC

To: ananth@cisco.com, randall@lakerest.net, mdalal@cisco.com, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, michael.scharf@nokia.com, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: wes@mti-systems.com, tcpm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20170712170307.B28CCB81EBE@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:03:07 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/psvRszBZ4MTRXeaz1xLAtM4AX24>
Subject: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5961 (5068)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5961,
"Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5068

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>

Section: 3.2

Original Text
-------------
[RFC0793] currently requires handling of a segment with the RST bit
when in a synchronized state to be processed as follows:
...
Instead, implementations SHOULD implement the following steps in
place of those specified in [RFC0793] (as listed above).

Corrected Text
--------------
[RFC0793] currently requires handling of a segment with the RST bit
when in a synchronized state to be processed as follows:
...
Instead, when in either a synchronized state or SYN-RECEIVED,
implementations SHOULD implement the following steps in place of
those specified in [RFC0793] (as listed above, for the synchronized
states). Note that transition from SYN-RECEIVED to either LISTEN or
CLOSED and user signaling is still subject to whether the connection
was originated by a passive OPEN (as described in RFC 793).

Notes
-----
The text in section 3.2 begins by stating a change from RFC 793 for RST bit handling "when in a synchronized state" (which means all states except for LISTEN, SYN-SENT, and SYN-RECEIVED). Later in the section, the same change is described more loosely and text states that it's applicable "In all states except SYN-SENT", and separate behavior is provided for SYN-SENT, but the earlier text leaves uncertainty if the former is supposed to apply to SYN-RECEIVED as well, since the earlier text in the section section begins by discussing only "synchronized" states.

Since the check is totally valid for SYN-RECEIVED, and the behavior in steps 1, 2, and 3 are valid for SYN-RECEIVED, it seems appropriate to make sure this is clarified in the earlier text.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC5961 (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-13)
--------------------------------------
Title : Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks
Publication Date : August 2010
Author(s) : A. Ramaiah, R. Stewart, M. Dalal
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
Area : Transport
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5961 (5068) RFC Errata System
Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5961 (5… Mirja Kuehlewind