Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6564 (4807)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:09:43 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6564,
"A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6564&eid=4807

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>

Section: 4 and 9

Original Text
-------------
In Section 4:

Next Header          8-bit selector.  Identifies the type of header
                        immediately following the extension header.
                        Uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field
                        [IANA_IP_PARAM].

In Section 9:

[IANA_IP_PARAM] IANA, "IP Parameters",
                   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters>.

Corrected Text
--------------
In Section 4:

Next Header          8-bit selector.  Identifies the type of header
                        immediately following the extension header.
                        Uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field
                        [IANA-PN].

In Section 9:

[IANA-PN]  "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/
              protocol-numbers.xhtml>.

Notes
-----
I noticed in cross-checking that RFC6564 refers to [IANA_IP_PARAM], or http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters/ip-parameters.xhtml, while 2460-bis refers to [IANA-PN], or https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml for the possible Next Header values in the Uniform IPv6 EH defined in RFC6564, and described in Section 4.8 of 2460-bis. So looks like an errata needed?

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6564 (draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-06)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers
Publication Date    : April 2012
Author(s)           : S. Krishnan, J. Woodyatt, E. Kline, J. Hoagland, M. Bhatia
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:24:08 +1200

I'm going to have to check 2460bis, but for RFC 6564 there should *also* be
a reference to

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#extension-header

That is the registry created by RFC 7045, so actually 7045 should have
performed this update to 6564. However, at this stage making it an erratum
for 6564 seems better.

Regards
   Brian
On 21/09/2016 01:09, RFC Errata System wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:56:04 +0100

Hi,

Yes, it would seem to make sense to add that as well Brian.

2460bis refers to Protocol Numbers, which is what RFC6564 should point to, not IP(v4) Parameters.

2460bis says in Section 9:

—

"9.  IANA Considerations
 
RFC2460 is referenced in a number of IANA registries.  These include:

      o  Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters [IANA-6P]

      o  Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers [IANA-PN]

   The IANA should update these references to point to this document."

—

Which looks OK?

Tim

> On 20 Sep 2016, at 21:24, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:04:37 +0300

>   The IANA should update these references to point to this document.”

I just did a search on the IANA site, there are few more IANA registries that reference rfc2460.  I will update this section.

Bob