[tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9260 (7148)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 06 October 2022 09:59 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E517DC14F613 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgoz4YL0t7xW for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22954C14CE39 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id CB66F55ECA; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 02:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: randall@lakerest.net, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, kee@kamstrup.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, david.black@dell.com, martenseemann@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: tuexen@fh-muenster.de, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221006095905.CB66F55ECA@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:59:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/9jncQ9-0Q74EA744ZATHZKLHoSc>
Subject: [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9260 (7148)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 09:59:10 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9260, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7148 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Michael Tüxen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Section: 3.3.3 Original Text ------------- A receiver of an INIT ACK chunk with the a_rwnd value set to a value smaller than 1500 MUST discard the packet, SHOULD send a packet in response containing an ABORT chunk and using the Initiate Tag as the Verification Tag, and MUST NOT change the state of any existing association. Corrected Text -------------- If an endpoint in the COOKIE-WAIT state receives an INIT ACK chunk with the a_rwnd value set to a value smaller than 1500, it MUST destroy the TCB and SHOULD send an ABORT chunk. If such an INIT ACK chunk is received in any state other than CLOSED or COOKIE-WAIT, it SHOULD be discarded silently (see Section 5.2.3). Notes ----- The handling of a_rwnd < 1500 should be similar to the handling of OS = 0 or MIS = 0. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC9260 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-19) -------------------------------------- Title : Stream Control Transmission Protocol Publication Date : June 2022 Author(s) : R. Stewart, M. Tüxen, K. Nielsen Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Transport Area Working Group Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [tsvwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9260 (7148) RFC Errata System