RFC Errata
Found 4 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 9293, "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", August 2022
Source of RFC: tcpm (wit)
Errata ID: 8167
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Christopher Williams
Date Reported: 2024-11-04
Verifier Name: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Date Verified: 2025-03-19
Section 3.10.7.3 says:
o A potential blind reset attack is described in RFC 5961 [9].
The mitigation described in that document has specific
applicability explained therein, and is not a substitute for
cryptographic protection (e.g., IPsec or TCP-AO). A TCP
implementation that supports the mitigation described in RFC
5961 SHOULD first check that the sequence number exactly
matches RCV.NXT prior to executing the action in the next
paragraph.
It should say:
[ The text is removed - see notes]
Notes:
This entire bullet is removed as RFC 5961 adds no rules to the handling
of RST segments in the SYN-SENT state.
See the discussion here (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Y5feX5f1YA00gCUyb4yP4iNfdXs/)
Errata ID: 8171
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Christopher Williams
Date Reported: 2024-11-06
Verifier Name: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Date Verified: 2025-03-18
Section Appendix B says:
+-----------------+---------+------+--------+-----+--------+------+
| * Dest Unreach | SHLD-25 | X | | | | |
| (0,1,5) => | | | | | | |
| inform ALP | | | | | | |
+-----------------+---------+------+--------+-----+--------+------+
It should say:
+-----------------+---------+------+--------+-----+--------+------+
| * Dest Unreach | SHLD-25 | | X | | | |
| (0,1,5) => | | | | | | |
| inform ALP | | | | | | |
+-----------------+---------+------+--------+-----+--------+------+
Notes:
This requirement has an X in the "MUST" column, but the X should be in the "SHOULD" column.
The relevant text for this requirement is "a TCP implementation ... SHOULD make the information available to the application (SHLD-25)."
Errata ID: 8126
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: zhihua.li
Date Reported: 2024-10-01
Verifier Name: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Date Verified: 2025-03-18
Section 3.3.1 says:
the sequence space labeled 3 in Figure 3
It should say:
the sequence space labeled 2 and 3 in Figure 3
Notes:
In Figure 3, the send window shoud be 2(sequence numbers of unacknowledged data) and 3(sequence numbers allowed for new data transmission).
Status: Reported (1)
RFC 9293, "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", August 2022
Source of RFC: tcpm (wit)
Errata ID: 8654
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Denis Ovsienko
Date Reported: 2025-11-22
Section 3.1 says:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data | |C|E|U|A|P|R|S|F| | | Offset| Rsrvd |W|C|R|C|S|S|Y|I| Window | | | |R|E|G|K|H|T|N|N| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Reserved (Rsrvd): 4 bits
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data |R|R|R|R|C|E|U|A|P|R|S|F| | | Offset|4|5|6|7|W|C|R|C|S|S|Y|I| Window | | | | | | |R|E|G|K|H|T|N|N| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] R4, R5, R6, R7: 1 bit each
Notes:
The packet diagram does not match the prose: this document in Section 6 "IANA Considerations" defines bits 4-7 as distinct bits rather than a single 4-bit field.
This definition as distinct bits is new to this document compared to the two previous TCP specifications (RFC 3168 and RFC 793), each of which defines the Reserved field of the TCP header as a single field, 4-bit and 6-bit respectively, and does not define any data structure for it. Likewise, RFC 3168 Section 6.1 "TCP" says: "This specification of the ECN Field leaves the Reserved field as a 4-bit field using bits 4-7."
This way, when the packet diagram shows the reserved part of the TCP header as a single field, it is consistent with the prose in RFC 3168 and RFC 793, but is an error in this document.