On Mon, 22 Jul 2024, RFC Errata System wrote:
Subject: [IPsec] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9347 (8042)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9347,
"Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Its
Use for IP Traffic Flow Security (IP-TFS)".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8042
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Antony Antony <antony.ant...@secunet.com>
Section: 7.2
Original Text
-------------
3-255 Unassigned
Corrected Text
--------------
2-255 Unassigned
Notes
-----
The same section, in the previous line, states "1 Congestion Control Format RFC
9347" so 2 is not covered in the registry. It's likely meant to be "Unassigned"?
While true, I would be tempted to reject this errata because this list
is not meant to be correct over time anyway, when other documents
register things in the registry anyway.
Especially since technical errata show up prominently at the datatracker
and this is not something that implementers really do need to be warned
about.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
