Found 1 record.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 3519, "Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices", April 2003

Errata ID: 1481
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Manish Yadav
Date Reported: 2008-08-06
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2012-10-04

Section 3.2 says:

3.2 UDP Tunnel Reply Extension

   This extension is a non-skippable extension.  It is sent in reply to
   a UDP Tunnel Request extension, and indicates whether or not the HA
   will use MIP UDP tunnelling for the current mobility binding.  The
   format of this extension is as shown below.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |    Sub-Type   |  Reply Code   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |F|        Reserved             |     Keepalive Interval        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type                44

   Length              6.  Length in bytes of this extension, not
                       including the Type and Length bytes.

   Sub-Type            0

   Reply Code          Indicates whether the HA assents or declines
                       to use UDP tunnelling for the current mobility
                       binding.  See Section 3.2.1 below.

Notes:

In RFC 3519 paragraph 3.2, the UDP Tunnel Reply Extension is specified as a non-skippable with type = 44. However the extension is specified in the "Short Extension Format", which should be used for skippable extensions according to RFC 3344 paragraph 1.11.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
RFC 3344 paragraph 1.11 specifies that the short extension format
must be used by skippable extensions. It doesn't say mean that the format is only used by skippable extensions (i.e., the short extension format can be used by non-skippable extensions).

Report New Errata