Subject: [L2tpext] Section 7.2.1 of draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-14

From: Naoki ESAKA / 江坂直紀<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:46:57 +0900 (JST)

Hi all,

I have a question on section 7.2.1(OCRQ Sender States) of 
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-14.txt.

It says as follows:

   wait-reply      Receive ICRQ,      Process as        idle
                   lose tie breaker   OCRQ Recipient
                                      (Section 7.4.2)
   wait-reply      Receive ICRQ,      Send CDN          wait-reply
                   win tie breaker    for losing

However I think following is correct:

   wait-reply      Receive OCRQ,      Process as        idle
                   lose tie breaker   OCRQ Recipient
                                      (Section 7.4.2)
   wait-reply      Receive OCRQ,      Send CDN          wait-reply
                   win tie breaker    for losing

I see this from draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-12.txt.
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-base-11.txt seems OK to me.
Is this a essential change or typo?

As for typo, I think that follow text in Section 5.3:

   Call the shared key S, the Random Vector RV, and the Attribute Type
   A.  Break the value field into 16-octet chunks p1, p2, etc., with the
   last one padded at the end with random data to a 16-octet boundary.
   Call the ciphertext blocks c(1), c(2), etc.  We will also define
   intermediate values b1, b2, etc.

should be

   Call the shared key S, the Random Vector RV, and the Attribute Type
   A.  Break the value field into 16-octet chunks p_1, p_2, etc., with the
   last one padded at the end with random data to a 16-octet boundary.
   Call the ciphertext blocks c_1, c_2, etc.  We will also define
   intermediate values b_1, b_2, etc.

according to formula's change from -base-12.txt to -base-13.txt.

--
ESAKA Naoki <[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:58:32 -0500

> Is this a essential change or typo?

Yes, this is a typo as this table should clearly only be covering OCxx messages 
and states. AFAIK, you are the first to catch this one. I will include it in the 
current set of editorial fixes being considered.

> according to formula's change from -base-12.txt to -base-13.txt.

Yes, this is a known typo that was fixed in the latest version sent to the RFC 
Editor for publication.

Many thanks for the review,

- Mark