[tsvwg] [Errata Verified] RFC9260 (7148)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 06 October 2022 17:59 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 127E3C157B3B; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.962
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 rXkYV3rZSfHh; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:59:20 -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 35253C152703; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id CC46255ECA; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 10:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: tuexen@fh-muenster.de, randall@lakerest.net, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, kee@kamstrup.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221006175919.CC46255ECA@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:59:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/xb5X64JFHZ-_Vr3a6fri4dcNhR8>
Subject: [tsvwg] [Errata Verified] 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 17:59:24 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9260, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7148 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Michael Tüxen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Date Reported: 2022-10-06 Verified by: Martin Duke (IESG) 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. -------------------------------------- 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] [Errata Verified] RFC9260 (7148) RFC Errata System