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>om>;
> > > > > > > gsalguei@cisco.com; simon.perreault@logmein.com;
> > > > > > > martin.h.duke@gmail.com; philip_matthews@magma.ca; Gonzalo
> Camarillo
> > > > > > > <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>om>; 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>