Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5925 (6406)

[Joseph Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

This report is correct. Recommend “hold for doc update” as the figure is not used as normatively and the corresponding text description is correct.

Joe

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 3:31 AM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5925,
> "The TCP Authentication Option".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6406
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Ananth Rajadurai <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: Section 5.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> In Section 5.1, Figure 6 - TCP IPv6 Pseudoheader
> 
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +          Source Address           +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +        Destination Address        +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |      Upper-Layer Payload Length   |
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |      Zero       |    Next Header  |
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +          Source Address           +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +        Destination Address        +
> |                                   |
> +                                   +
> |                                   |
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |      Upper-Layer Payload Length   |
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> |            Zero          |Next Hdr|
> +--------+--------+--------+--------+
> 
> Notes
> -----
> In IPv6 pseudoheader,  Zero field should be 3 bytes and Next header should be 1 byte. 
> But in RFC 5925, figure 6, it misleads into Zero field 2 bytes and Next header 2 bytes.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5925 (draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The TCP Authentication Option
> Publication Date    : June 2010
> Author(s)           : J. Touch, A. Mankin, R. Bonica
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm