IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Errata for SCTP over DTLS

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 20 April 2020 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 DA5B73A0A6C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 crohkTyQJO7f for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (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 A37BA3A0A69 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id z2so7221753iol.11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tBU6jWh8RX/GfplSxZafHtleGSppLr+zmX5ePUOTK7g=; b=X75PLYwBjNKunhpLnsVOlSyxMI7ml000EY84jPIGcpGyNcUt4LS8OzbqqVuGBw/COV 2nfo0Ovr/CUNsa368UaAAaHYT0D7u8Nub0s6QizSHFZmUZA4gHlWREMy4jbrzL8vzRpT u8rXCUY9E8wDPyFyRWHrTypogMK3CngwG7UfH4ryQWSBbOD3mgs852PGvGZCz85NJDpK Yg+xmNZsfpVmWkocuXxZYlv/zpkrUgL6atjVQ+RfIqK4xTQQlvFRj1MZVURVjpZRB0ZQ hnPrcrpeDZl5S/eo5LRvK26JUan1hHORLNbaf340jspjjr4KX2SY1C5ld6DcXn8WCh8V Quxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tBU6jWh8RX/GfplSxZafHtleGSppLr+zmX5ePUOTK7g=; b=lQ1iEG691IfV2Ag6Gt0k3yMZiepcyl7ql/o8Bv3deeZCKnlFjDa3oFngrrvisBNitt ErCrI89zkYFuQFZQ85vGqIBlzeK7Eh+FGiOMn65M6aTtaqmYAbtt2j8stLeCkz/yfkpI c7SvtxeABT8QDYa9lLgmt4+3RmNE5zEC5pFqKpI4yiYgDFBwo/s+rYm7DLlkN6v/zdsQ kEDLpSrec597JBqJAUDhVH4wr50qq/fSPBEA1TKoSj7YmWTE+I5ESdAMGVPa0udp6ox2 xwT+UFnh1Ffz95qhQvAEyz5pn/kZqP/O3K89sHgr7qQUlmo7r1MdrYdjPNM1RiWXIRmH eMdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY5egvb3OvLomVlJ9q6sFifeRzt30ey12HOyxazxgAaXqGzte3u qTtkL/4W0gDGcahQdBC0/HmFhlWxGPBIiDtOjrY7wAuO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKrRtUPo3I8itC/aSiooim1e9ipoP0BjWdOz68dEQijmCFq3i3pT51i1Nee1cN+6w5uMfaiFZJX3TjrUYuJezM=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:84ee:: with SMTP id f101mr16307392jai.95.1587398783609; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:06:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSYQEE8QWFB72adcAhU5ZRm8J8GSvBu92Y39hacjJw9Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d2ed005a3bb14c9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Y4qkQqjQkpFu1EE5FSqSk_xdo34>
Subject: [tsvwg] Errata for SCTP over DTLS
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:06:26 -0000

Hello tsvwg,

I'm seeking to verify this erratum:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5744 but am definitely not an expert
on SCTP over DTLS.

Is this is a simple oversight in the document? A flaw in the design that
should be fixed the next time around? Or just an incorrect report?

Thanks,
Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email