RFC 1624, "Computation of the Internet Checksum via Incremental Update", May 1994

Errata ID: 4782
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ihsan Ulla Sharief
Date Reported: 2016-08-18

Section 3 says:

   The problem is avoided by not assuming this property.  The correct
   equation is given below:

          HC' = ~(C + (-m) + m')    --    [Eqn. 3]
              = ~(~HC + ~m + m')

It should say:

   The problem is avoided by not assuming this property.  The correct
   equation is given below:

          HC' = ~(C + (-m) + m')    --    [Eqn. 3]
              = ~(~HC + ~m + m')

Notes:

The RFC is for computing incremental checksum and ensuring the computed checksum does not result in 0xFFFF (representing -0). However, when in cases where the original value (m) has not changed, and original header checksum (HC) is 0, it will change the fianl checksum value to 0xFFFF (against the intent of this RFC).

Example:
m = 0x5555
~m = 0xAAAA
m' = 0x5555
Checksum (HC) = 0x0000
Checksum compliment (~HC) = 0xFFFF
incremental checksum = ~(~HC + ~m + m') ~(0xFFFF + 0xAAAA + 0x5555) = ~(0x0000) = 0xFFFF

Solution:
Need to explicitly mention that the incremental checksum computation should be done only when there is change in value (ie, m != m').

Report New Errata