errata logo graphic

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC4982, "Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)", July 2007

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: int

Errata ID: 1013

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2007-08-20
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman

 

(1)  Section 3 -- typo ??

In the second bullet on mid-page 3, Section 3 twice talks about
"Care-off Adress".  That is potentially misleading.
The RFC should use the proper term from Mobile IP, "Care-of Adress".


(2)  Section 4.1

(2a)  underspecification; needs clarification

In the 3rd paragraph on page 5, Section 4.1 says (on mid-page 5):

                                                [...].  So for instance,
   the Sec value 000 would mean that the hash function used is SHA-1 and
|  the 0 bits of hash2 (as defined in RFC 3972) must be 0.  Sec value of
|  001 could be that the hash function used is SHA-1 and the 16 bits of
   hash2 (as defined in RFC 3972) must be zero.  [...]

It should perhaps better say, to avoid possible misinterpretation:

                                                [...].  So for instance,
   the Sec value 000 would mean that the hash function used is SHA-1 and
|  the 0 bits of hash2 (as defined in RFC 3972) must be 0.  The Sec value
|  001 could indicate that the hash function used is SHA-1 and the 16
|  leftmost bits of hash2 (as defined in RFC 3972) must be zero.  [...]

Note: "leftmost" is the essential clarification; the other changes
      attempt further subordinate improvements of the language.

(2b)  wording/clarification

In the middle of the last paragraph on page 5, Section 4.1 talks
about                     "a last resource option" .
Shouldn't that have been  "a last resort option"   ?

Report New Errata