Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6268)
RenThraysk <renthraysk@gmail.com> Wed, 23 September 2020 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <renthraysk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E88D3A12E0 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 V4ENDx_la-q4 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 157623A12D8 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id k18so772230wmj.5 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m9h/pP6DKCYxUBSDglsIgVt5STIN+1+bfNvHkXN/LUQ=; b=fgHANgVaXNvfMtJjBr3WsmVw9vmXiSdhl+qDsVIKo1xjKaSd+7fk/gv7Nr+M2nqLr7 EjhuO/xQzXC4+ZsrKyysLz5qeSZkMZXFC5V9D1UtIE7cFFoN9RhWOdvA2GVHGa62J7dH llklVubLSq/P/BVj1TSown8CwE1M40r9G2Gu0SxDejfY1EmGFD9PVLRysYGUbOpCpEdE 8rVl1bkVd9pJfSrNSXNfOW6TSL8kIq0eJgjmkkw3WymV8W3SwIjjXCICLwHUItq2XHcw d1ur2djBZkuW4eDexYDdvFrJ2eW1Sxcv3HQc8VwnCKJ7BegAsPc1pacFND7ZJhhIgpev KBhw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m9h/pP6DKCYxUBSDglsIgVt5STIN+1+bfNvHkXN/LUQ=; b=PH4kKze1FRicbDi8HjNg2qk4G1TE89giMbzKiee3X+Hx71+Ensh1YPZTcGotdZMS+N Fte+FstCqxoexyJgShv1rhRJXpBNodB2rOY++eckQyfktkEfUHsilxrjtmOu48V0aTKC OPfHIPlDV/QAMpV8EBwnMAL2yh4PPpNmOcwQBNM813VlryHm28zC4W/SiBQG/Z/PS0/J wjE4CDur8z/GrVlOdnqtHHN5gCXfejyt23E/ghOykhE/YpvrURvP5PNDmVR8teLS8tTZ gmn2xmVFWX/nVgJMMn4O7dB7JEwTdqRcHkupEWduc3TMFVbwetfsm2MwHD8PWSgZvQLg NcOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532l4gPrKVb0REZM6Fi9CL3cQiGfoj9FKlVP9eY+Gvbb5IWoVbqm LdaFAMiJdMSIgn6D25Ko+hg89J1oThO/z1a9BCI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpeB9k7xnQLsWTb8JDm8yBBpIhQHeZe3UlSgcfmZ1z0UTtwsDwTYfidOnrb+o71lzHGYGhwJlMCUmqXhqGIXM=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c2a9:: with SMTP id c9mr477296wmk.87.1600880329431; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200830152251.37CA9F4076B@rfc-editor.org> <bd82edbe82f83f7c92c6cb21924951d35132768f.camel@ericsson.com> <B09AFC19-A790-46C5-A97B-69572411A229@cisco.com> <7bbe51fd9a5a226752597825f276f6baad70add7.camel@ericsson.com> <f48eb512-5c17-20bd-dfd6-2d368e9fd4b9@petit-huguenin.org> <CABNgG1g3Tx1QroP+eo+WeQXxD2XPvf+n67pekBqRi8+QzgX8_Q@mail.gmail.com> <65838ad3-7ee9-3339-1326-8c2d212f6fa6@petit-huguenin.org> <HE1PR0702MB3772F26F7B3E91B8DC6982D695280@HE1PR0702MB3772.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d0498051-d762-855d-bf74-d65a8bdf88da@petit-huguenin.org> <b3cae3bd-2b7f-d8c5-fcb4-55be9f11a3ce@petit-huguenin.org> <CABNgG1hzNyM-qqCpprXBUJ4y-X7OOMZHK72wpPL_rJ+TLXrz-g@mail.gmail.com> <4803aae689ab3839beb9f2a65762001495bc31f8.camel@ericsson.com> <4fb78f8080c69a727fb392d1c4462ffa63fe45c2.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4fb78f8080c69a727fb392d1c4462ffa63fe45c2.camel@ericsson.com>
From: RenThraysk <renthraysk@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:58:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CABNgG1gXeekROCX4_aHo4RYX8fZg6b967AZEPRRhxTH9PxQdGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: "marc@petit-huguenin.org" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>, "jdrosen@jdrosen.net" <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, "martin.h.duke@gmail.com" <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, "dwing-ietf@fuggles.com" <dwing-ietf@fuggles.com>, "philip_matthews@magma.ca" <philip_matthews@magma.ca>, "rohan.ietf@gmail.com" <rohan.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d1dbe05affdff0c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/Ifos0pwq-Ak6NSvuJLvO4eVvp8c>
Subject: Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6268)
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:59:03 -0000
Hi Apologies for the delay. Yes, MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 and USERHASH both explicitly specify using SHA256. However this RFC adds some agility to computing the long term HMAC key used to compute the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8489#section-18.5 If using MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 implies that the SHA-256 algorithm ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8489#section-18.5.1.2 ) then it's not clear in the RFC. If it doesn't imply how the key is generated then suggest adding following line to the test vector parameters "MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 long term key algorithm: SHA-256" Jared. On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:18 PM Magnus Westerlund < magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote: > Jared, > > Any follow up on the the below question? I would like to conclude on this > Errata. > > /Magnus > > On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 15:53 +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Marc for the new test vector. > > > > Thanks Jared for verifying it. > > > > I have updated the Errata with Marc latest test vector. > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c2b8810a-9c18434c-c2b8c191-86fc6812c361-deb1c6e569244be5&q=1&e=1eef972f-1e6d-4430-97e5-2b968535970d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata_search.php%3Feid%3D6268 > > > > Please check this. > > > > Jared, I don't understand your request about noting SHA-256 password > > algorithm. > > To me it appears very clear in this section and in the message exactly > what > > protocol elements are being used. USERHASH and MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 > are > > both > > clear that they use SHA256. So if you want any change to the note, can > you > > provide what text you propse? > > > > > > B.1. Sample Request with Long-Term Authentication with MESSAGE- > > INTEGRITY-SHA256 and USERHASH > > > > This request uses the following parameters: > > > > Username: "<U+30DE><U+30C8><U+30EA><U+30C3><U+30AF><U+30B9>" (without > > quotes) unaffected by OpaqueString [RFC8265] processing > > > > Password: "The<U+00AD>M<U+00AA>tr<U+2168>" and "TheMatrIX" (without > > quotes) respectively before and after OpaqueString [RFC8265] > > processing > > > > Nonce: "obMatJos2AAACf//499k954d6OL34oL9FSTvy64sA" (without quotes) > > > > Realm: "example.org" (without quotes) > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 15:47 +0100, RenThraysk wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Ok, this is using the SHA256 Password Algorithm, so I suggest that > should be > > > noted in the errata as part of the parameters listed in B.1 > > > But can now successfully create the test vector from my code. > > > > > > Will open the other > > > errata proposing to strike the line about the right to left bit > ordering. > > > > > > Jared > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 2:15 PM Marc Petit-Huguenin < > marc@petit-huguenin.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > After looking at the emails exchanged at that time, the reason the > > > > userhash > > > > was different was because we tentatively changed the username during > > > > AUTH48, > > > > then decided to use the original one, but my code got stuck with the > new > > > > username. I updated the code and the test-vector is now: > > > > > > > > 00 01 00 88 Request type and message length > > > > 21 12 a4 42 Magic cookie > > > > 78 ad 34 33 } > > > > c6 ad 72 c0 } Transaction ID > > > > 29 da 41 2e } > > > > 00 1e 00 20 USERHASH attribute header > > > > 4a 3c f3 8f } > > > > ef 69 92 bd } > > > > a9 52 c6 78 } > > > > 04 17 da 0f } Userhash value (32 bytes) > > > > 24 81 94 15 } > > > > 56 9e 60 b2 } > > > > 05 c4 6e 41 } > > > > 40 7f 17 04 } > > > > 00 15 00 29 NONCE attribute header > > > > 6f 62 4d 61 } > > > > 74 4a 6f 73 } > > > > 32 41 41 41 } > > > > 43 66 2f 2f } > > > > 34 39 39 6b } Nonce value and padding (3 bytes) > > > > 39 35 34 64 } > > > > 36 4f 4c 33 } > > > > 34 6f 4c 39 } > > > > 46 53 54 76 } > > > > 79 36 34 73 } > > > > 41 00 00 00 } > > > > 00 14 00 0b REALM attribute header > > > > 65 78 61 6d } > > > > 70 6c 65 2e } Realm value (11 bytes) and padding (1 byte) > > > > 6f 72 67 00 } > > > > 00 1c 00 20 MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 attribute header > > > > 23 41 12 fb } > > > > d4 e2 7f 98 } > > > > 3e b4 03 28 } > > > > 36 f9 98 21 } HMAC-SHA256 value > > > > 6f 5b 23 f8 } > > > > d9 27 75 3f } > > > > bc 4f 88 2b } > > > > fb df 0d ec } > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the note in the errata is fine (after updating the test- > > > > vector). > > > > > > > > Let's open a separate errata for the other issue. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/20 9:21 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > > > > > Yes, I will provide text. > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/20 9:13 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I will hold, but please consider if you directly have any text > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > the note part of the errata to explain the changes that are in > there > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > if we > > > > > > need to change the text above the message itself to clarify > thingS? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> > > > > > > > Sent: den 7 september 2020 18:11 > > > > > > > To: RenThraysk <renthraysk@gmail.com> > > > > > > > Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>; > > > > > > > gsalguei@cisco.com; simon.perreault@logmein.com; > > > > > > > martin.h.duke@gmail.com; philip_matthews@magma.ca; Gonzalo > Camarillo > > > > > > > <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>; jdrosen@jdrosen.net; dwing- > > > > > > > ietf@fuggles.com; tram@ietf.org; rohan.ietf@gmail.com > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6268) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good question. We changed the username after we > discovered > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the one I used previously was in fact invalid with the new > PRECIS > > > > > > > rules, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > am not sure why the one in the RFC is different. I'll have to > look > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > archives to find exactly what is what, but that will have to > wait > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > Monday morning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, Magnus, please hold on the errata modification. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/20 8:22 AM, RenThraysk wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why has the Userhash value changed from the original test > vector? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jared > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:21 PM Marc Petit-Huguenin > > > > > > > > <marc@petit-huguenin.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Magnus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the corrected test-vector: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <begins> > > > > > > > > > 00 01 00 88 Request type and message length > > > > > > > > > 21 12 a4 42 Magic cookie > > > > > > > > > 78 ad 34 33 } > > > > > > > > > c6 ad 72 c0 } Transaction ID > > > > > > > > > 29 da 41 2e } > > > > > > > > > 00 1e 00 20 USERHASH attribute header > > > > > > > > > 63 aa 09 fc } > > > > > > > > > 23 81 0a 46 } > > > > > > > > > c9 76 e9 59 } > > > > > > > > > 23 10 ee 1e } Userhash value (32 bytes) > > > > > > > > > 59 b7 06 e1 } > > > > > > > > > 9d e1 bd 21 } > > > > > > > > > a9 f6 f7 40 } > > > > > > > > > 28 d5 ba 71 } > > > > > > > > > 00 15 00 29 NONCE attribute header > > > > > > > > > 6f 62 4d 61 } > > > > > > > > > 74 4a 6f 73 } > > > > > > > > > 32 41 41 41 } > > > > > > > > > 43 66 2f 2f } > > > > > > > > > 34 39 39 6b } Nonce value and padding (3 bytes) > > > > > > > > > 39 35 34 64 } > > > > > > > > > 36 4f 4c 33 } > > > > > > > > > 34 6f 4c 39 } > > > > > > > > > 46 53 54 76 } > > > > > > > > > 79 36 34 73 } > > > > > > > > > 41 00 00 00 } > > > > > > > > > 00 14 00 0b REALM attribute header > > > > > > > > > 65 78 61 6d } > > > > > > > > > 70 6c 65 2e } Realm value (11 bytes) and padding > (1 > > > > > > > > > byte) > > > > > > > > > 6f 72 67 00 } > > > > > > > > > 00 1c 00 20 MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 attribute > header > > > > > > > > > 8e 57 3d 97 } > > > > > > > > > 75 33 21 ae } > > > > > > > > > 47 8c b6 a2 } > > > > > > > > > 7b 8a 6b 3a } HMAC-SHA256 value > > > > > > > > > 89 08 9e e1 } > > > > > > > > > 5f 62 6b 38 } > > > > > > > > > 40 9f 48 ed } > > > > > > > > > 47 a5 df 57 } > > > > > > > > > <ends> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/1/20 4:04 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is reasonable that we do an RFC Errata for > this > > > > > > > > > > error to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide a > > > > > > > > > > corrected test vector. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can edit the Errata request to have a different text. > So if > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authors could > > > > > > > > > > prepare and review a proposal that fixes this I will > edit and > > > > > > > > approve > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you can provide the text that goes into the three > parts: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Text: (I assume the full message from B.1 here) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text: Full message with corrected message > length and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recomputed Hash > > > > > > > > > > value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes: If there are any additional that was already > written > > > > > > > > > > that you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to > > > > > > > > > > remark about this error? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 17:00 +0000, Gonzalo Salgueiro > > > > > > > > > > (gsalguei) > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Magnus - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc responded earlier so you may have missed it. > Below is > > > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > response: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > This errata is correct, and there is nobody to blame > for > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > mistake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnus, how to you want to proceed for the recomputed > test > > > > > > > > > > > vector? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gonzalo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2020, at 11:08 AM, Magnus Westerlund < > > > > > > > > > > > > magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Author's can you please confirm if this is correct > or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2020-08-30 at 08:22 -0700, RFC Errata System > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC8489, > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=99260d6d-c786cf2b-99264df6-86fc > > > > > > > > > 6812c361-2320f3daa9544fe5&q=1&e=c28eb099-e321-4447-80c3- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 942509fe0974& > > > > > > > > > u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6268 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Type: Technical > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported by: Jared Williams <renthraysk@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section: Appendix B.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original Text > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > 00 01 00 9c Request type and message length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > 00 01 00 88 Request type and message length > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notes > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > The message length in the test vector (9c) is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute length > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > > > > > > > test vector. However from section 5. STUN Message > > > > > > > > > > > > > Structure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The message length MUST contain the size of the > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > in bytes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > including the 20-byte STUN header." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the message length in the header should be 20 > less > > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > length > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the whole message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x9C - 20, 0x88. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY-SHA256 HMAC-SHA256 > value of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Test > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vector will need recomputing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC8489 (draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-21) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Title : Session Traversal Utilities > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > NAT (STUN) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Publication Date : February 2020 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Author(s) : M. Petit-Huguenin, G. > Salgueiro, > > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > Rosenberg, > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > R. Mahy, P. Matthews > > > > > > > > > > > > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > > > > > > > > > > > > Source : TURN Revised and Modernized > > > > > > > > > > > > > Area : Transport > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stream : IETF > > > > > > > > > > > > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magnus Westerlund > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Networks, Ericsson Research > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > Torshamnsgatan 23 | > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
- [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6268) RFC Errata System
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… RenThraysk
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… RenThraysk
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Rohan Mahy
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… RenThraysk
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… RenThraysk
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… RenThraysk
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [tram] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8489 (6… Magnus Westerlund