RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 2004, "Minimal Encapsulation within IP", October 1996

Source of RFC: mobileip (int)

Errata ID: 2840
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Francesco Balzarini
Date Reported: 2011-06-17
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-05-04

Throughout the document, when it says:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |S|  reserved   |        Header Checksum        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Original Destination Address                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :            (if present) Original Source Address               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

It should say:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Original Destination Address                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :            (if present) Original Source Address               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Protocol    |S|  reserved   |        Header Checksum        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 

Notes:

given that:
- The ip4 header has variable size ( >20 octets )
- The suggested extra header has variable size ( 8 or 12 octets )
- The S bit to distinguish the suggested header size is located
inside the second octet of the suggested header
- The only size information is about the sum of both headers

The implication is that the S bit cannot be located.

My opinion to correct this problem is just to change
the order of elements inside the suggested header.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The proposed change is a protocol modification and must go through the standardization process.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search