Found 1 record.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4025, "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying Material in DNS", March 2005

Errata ID: 7402
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tobias Brunner
Date Reported: 2023-03-23
Date Verified: 2023-08-02

Section 2.1 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  precedence   | gateway type  |  algorithm  |     gateway     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------+                 +
      ~                            gateway                            ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  precedence   | gateway type  |   algorithm   |    gateway    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------+               +
      ~                            gateway                            ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Notes:

Section 2.4 does not explicitly specify a length for the algorithm field (unlike section 2.2 does for the precedence field). But using only 7 bits for it after the preceding two fields used 8 bits is quite unexpected. So this seems like a mistake in this diagram. Note that the BIND DNS server already uses 8 bits for the algorithm field.

Report New Errata