Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5925 (5347)

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Wed, 05 September 2018 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E101E12F1A5 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 YzjfbXP0Ytv6 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C13D41271FF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ONecWPmvZe+2hODdP5lJrAxagUX8syqQjDqiBQuXxTU=; b=SbTsWzXADU2S5mbis2z8myW2r 3T8LcFnDY13d9rpMzXDWL9eK5u4p0PfecOLCVtkeYkJxO9oqswOF5G0mK3OpESUvCwNlMwXotF1yD eJgeBEkMH1cSnJsKYEk9k9jmUvnzc3098DFxNk2fQQh53c3zDZuE9OxhjdS9gIBYI39qAxxHcsmWT 8xPsCkPT0RCGNjFJKa3PDeMQzDxFn4G7R2YzNzVpVXW253XxXK9r7C03kIZ/t8lbsBQ+rObEuy9R5 Bv+HgAif+OnqcyuRb6wMv3LhbcktXDB9T5clB+egv5aM5cATn1ChCi5b2KYASHokEFCZAi7AU6W+m xn/b5FVPw==;
Received: from [::1] (port=53684 helo=server217.web-hosting.com) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1fxdEL-002HLW-3U; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:12:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_b55991603a396f58671b0f1c1686fdf0"
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 12:12:44 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Cc: Ignacio Goyret <ignacio.goyret@nokia.com>, tcpm@ietf.org, touch@isi.edu, rbonica@juniper.net, mankin@psg.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <518c945f-201d-3e20-4406-4135e182c6af@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <20180503203252.D2005B82AA4@rfc-editor.org> <fcbc3182691fb2d763d4966b79a48591@strayalpha.com> <201805040027.w440R3ji011041@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <f210b12a-ca8d-4323-05b2-193cceb88669@strayalpha.com> <518c945f-201d-3e20-4406-4135e182c6af@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <4c9ba64bef09362918acfb2d12a65eba@strayalpha.com>
X-Sender: touch@strayalpha.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.3
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/vZL5INn4ViBxCq2hL51GOFUO4wc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:10:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5925 (5347)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 05 Sep 2018 19:12:59 -0000

If we need an errata, we need to agree on the text, which we have not
yet. 

Joe 

On 2018-09-05 07:53, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:

> Hi Joe, hi Ignacio,
> 
> is this something that I should set in the "Hold for Update" state?
> 
> Mirja
> 
> On 04.05.2018 03:54, Joe Touch wrote: 
> 
> On 5/3/2018 5:20 PM, Ignacio Goyret wrote: The reason for the errata is because it happened: someone read
> that text and interpreted that the tcp checksum would only need
> to be cleared when only the TCP-AO option was included because the
> text stated "when included, only the TCP-AO MAC field is zeroed".
> Your suggested text addition does not address this incorrect
> interpretation. It actually does directly, with this phrase: "within those options".
> 
> I also encountered someone that insisted that when only the TCP-AO
> option was included, that it was only the option data, not its header. That is already addressed in the existing text directly here:
> 
> "When TCP options are not included, all TCP options except for TCP-
> AO are omitted from MAC processing."
> 
> That's why a reference to section 2.2 sounds reasonable to me. Adding the reference might be useful, but should not be strictly
> necessary to interpret the existing text.
> 
> IMO, this is *exactly* the reason for an "editorial" errata.
> Technical details are not altered, just language clarifications
> to promote interoperability. I am not suggesting rewriting this or
> any other RFC. There are many RFCs that have been misinterpreted. That doesn't always
> warrant suggested alternate text.
> 
> Joe
> 
> -Ignacio
> 
> At 14:38 5/3/2018, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> I do not agree that this is suggested text represents a clarification.
> 
> At best, only the one sentence warrants clarification:
> 
> From: When included, only the TCP-AO MAC field is zeroed.
> 
> To: When TCP options are included, within those options only the TCP-AO MAC field is zeroed.
> 
> However, that context is implicit in the existing text. Yes, we could completely rewrite every RFC to be more clear, but that is not the purpose of errata nor is it productive, IMO.
> 
> Joe
> 
> On 2018-05-03 16:32, RFC Errata System wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5925,
> "The TCP Authentication Option".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5347>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5347
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Ignacio Goyret <<mailto:ignacio.goyret@nokia.com>ignacio.goyret@nokia.com>
> 
> Section: 5.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> 3. The TCP header, by default including options, and where the TCP
> checksum and TCP-AO MAC fields are set to zero, all in network-
> byte order.
> 
> The TCP option flag of the MKT indicates whether the TCP options
> are included in the MAC.  When included, only the TCP-AO MAC field
> is zeroed.
> 
> When TCP options are not included, all TCP options except for TCP-
> AO are omitted from MAC processing.  Again, the TCP-AO MAC field
> is zeroed for the MAC processing.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 3. The TCP header and TCP options, where the TCP checksum and TCP-AO
> MAC fields are always set to zero, all in network-byte order.
> 
> The TCP option flag of the MKT indicates which TCP options are
> included in the MAC. When TCP options are not included, only the
> TCP option for TCP-AO (as described in Section 2.2) is included
> in the MAC. Otherwise, all the TCP options are included in the MAC.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Rewording for clarity and simplification.
> The original text could lead to confusion re '...When included, only the TCP-AO MAC field is zeroed.'
> 
> 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
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm