[v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4966 (3142)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 29 February 2012 19:48 UTC

To: ietf@energizeurnet.com, elwynd@dial.pipex.com, rbonica@juniper.net, dromasca@avaya.com, fred.baker@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20120229194253.0980972E042@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:42:53 -0800
Cc: david.black@emc.com, v6ops@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4966 (3142)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4966,
"Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4966&eid=3142

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: David L. Black <david.black@emc.com>

Section: 2.1

Original Text
-------------
Unless UDP encapsulation is used for IPsec [RFC3498], traffic using
IPsec AH (Authentication Header), in transport and tunnel mode, and
IPsec ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload), in transport mode, is
unable to be carried through NAT-PT without terminating the security
associations on the NAT-PT, due to their usage of cryptographic
integrity protection.

Corrected Text
--------------
IPsec traffic using AH (Authentication Header) [RFC4302] in both
transport and tunnel modes cannot be carried through NAT-PT without
terminating the security associations on the NAT-PT, due to the
inclusion of IP header fields in the scope of AH's cryptographic
integrity protection [RFC3715].  In addition, IPsec traffic using
ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) [RFC4303] in transport mode
generally uses UDP encapsulation [RFC3948] for NAT traversal
(including NAT-PT traversal) in order to avoid the problems
described in [RFC3715].


Notes
-----
This RFC4966 text was copied into draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-06.
Gen-ART review of that draft found that the statement was incorrect
for ESP.  The correct explanations of the problems (in great detail)
can be found in RFC 3715.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC4966 (draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status
Publication Date    : July 2007
Author(s)           : C. Aoun, E. Davies
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : IPv6 Operations
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4966 (3142) RFC Errata System
Re: [v6ops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4966 (… Fred Baker