[tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 04 March 2020 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 1854C3A0B30; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:59:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 BudyErUS4RRe; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC1C33A0B34; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 277C3F4071F; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:58:33 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf@bobbriscoe.net, kk@teraoptic.com, floyd@aciri.org, black_david@emc.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ietf@kuehlewind.net, iesg@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200304095833.277C3F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/qXxrF03j7wwD0rvFCMxapXCaqPk>
Subject: [tsvwg] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3168 (4754)
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 09:59:00 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC3168, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4754

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Date Reported: 2016-07-31
Held by: Mirja Kühlewind (IESG)

Section: Header block

Original Text
-------------
Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 793


Corrected Text
--------------
Updates: 2474, 2401, 2003, 2473, 793

Notes
-----
RFC 3168 updates RFC 2473 but does not indicate this in its header block.

Specifically, Section 9 of RFC 3168 defined processing of the ECN field for Encapsulated Packets, which updated section 6.4 of RFC 2473, where the creation of the "IPv6 Tunnel Packet Traffic Class" was specified. RFC3168 also updated the decapsulation behaviour of the ECN field in an IPv6 tunnel header, which had not been specified in RFC2473.

Note 1: As well as tagging RFC3168 with this erratum, RFC2473 needs to be tagged (in the RFC index and associated tools outputs) to indicate that it is updated by RFC3168.

Note 2: Originally, the "Updates:" header of RFC3168 did not contain "2003", which was added as a result of Errata ID 2660.

Note 3: The first sentence of section 9.1 in RFC3168 should also be modified as follows:
Original text:
   The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
   places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003].
Corrected text:
   The encapsulation of IP packet headers in tunnels is used in many
   places, including IPsec and IP in IP [RFC2003, 2473].
Comment: 
   Nowadays RFC2473 would be a normative reference, but RFC3168 pre-dated the categorisation of references into normative and informative.

Note 4: Section 9 of RFC3168 has since been updated by RFC6040. Nonetheless, that is already correctly identified in RFC6040.

This reported errata has be moved to "Held for Document Update". While the reported problem is correct and needs to be addressed, it is not just an errata but a larger oversight at publication time.

--------------------------------------
RFC3168 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
Publication Date    : September 2001
Author(s)           : K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Transport Area Working Group
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG