Subject: [Mipshop] RFC 4866 Errata

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:09:51 +0300

Folks,

after careful review, Alfred Hines discovered an mistake in RFC 4866
("Enhanced Route Optimization").  There are two back-to-back sentences
where a "maximum" should actually be a "minimum".

I wrote the errata note attached.  Please take a look if it reflects
working group consensus.  I will submit this to the RFC Editor after
Friday, 12:00 pm GMT, in case there are no complaints till then.

The errata also covers two typos.

Thank you,
- Christian
(1)  Page 21, 1st paragraph (section 4.2):

   If the Binding Update message is authenticated based on the CGA
   property of the mobile node's home address or by a proof of the
   mobile node's knowledge of a permanent home keygen token, the
   lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the maximum of
                                                 ^^^^^^^
   MAX_CGA_BINDING_LIFETIME and the value specified in the Lifetime
   field of the Binding Update message.

Should be:

   If the Binding Update message is authenticated based on the CGA
   property of the mobile node's home address or by a proof of the
   mobile node's knowledge of a permanent home keygen token, the
   lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to the minimum of
                                                 ^^^^^^^
   MAX_CGA_BINDING_LIFETIME and the value specified in the Lifetime
   field of the Binding Update message.

(2)  Page 21, 1st paragraph (section 4.2):

                                         If the Binding Update message
   is authenticated through a proof of the mobile node's reachability at
   the home address, then the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to
   the maximum of MAX_RR_BINDING_LIFETIME [1] and the value specified in
       ^^^^^^^
   the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.

Should be:

                                         If the Binding Update message
   is authenticated through a proof of the mobile node's reachability at
   the home address, then the lifetime for the binding SHOULD be set to
   the minimum of MAX_RR_BINDING_LIFETIME [1] and the value specified in
       ^^^^^^^
   the Lifetime field of the Binding Update message.

(3)  Typo:  Page 21, 1st paragraph (section 4.2):

                                                      The correspondent
   node may in either case grant a further reduced lifetime, but it MUST
        ^^^
   NOT accept a higher lifetime.
   
Should be:

                                                      The correspondent
   node MAY in either case grant a further reduced lifetime, but it MUST
        ^^^
   NOT accept a higher lifetime.

(4)  Typo:  Page 43, 1st paragraph (section 6.2):

                                                          Enhanced
   Router Optimization does not make assumptions on the relationship
   ^^^^^^
   between mobile and correspondent nodes.
   
Should be:

                                                          Enhanced
   Route Optimization does not make assumptions on the relationship
   ^^^^^
   between mobile and correspondent nodes.
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:21:23 +0300

Errata looks right to me. Thanks for spotting this, Alfred.

Jari

Christian Vogt kirjoitti:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>