Subject: [radext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8045 (5009)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 06:40:27 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8045,
"RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8045/eid5009

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Andrew Feren <[email-masked]>

Section: 7.1

Original Text
-------------
   o  sourceTransportPortsLimit:

      *  Name: sourceTransportPortsLimit

      *  Element ID: 458

      *  Description: This Information Element contains the maximum
         number of IP source transport ports that can be used by an end
         user when sending IP packets; each user is associated with one
         or more (source) IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.  This Information
         Element is particularly useful in address-sharing deployments
         that adhere to REQ-4 of [RFC6888].  Limiting the number of
         ports assigned to each user ensures fairness among users and
         mitigates the denial-of-service attack that a user could launch
         against other users through the address-sharing device in order
         to grab more ports.

      *  Data type: unsigned16

      *  Data type semantics: totalCounter

Corrected Text
--------------
   o  sourceTransportPortsLimit:

      *  Name: sourceTransportPortsLimit

      *  Element ID: 458

      *  Description: This Information Element contains the maximum
         number of IP source transport ports that can be used by an end
         user when sending IP packets; each user is associated with one
         or more (source) IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.  This Information
         Element is particularly useful in address-sharing deployments
         that adhere to REQ-4 of [RFC6888].  Limiting the number of
         ports assigned to each user ensures fairness among users and
         mitigates the denial-of-service attack that a user could launch
         against other users through the address-sharing device in order
         to grab more ports.

      *  Data type: unsigned16

      *  Data type semantics: quantity

Notes
-----
Only change is 

      *  Data type semantics: totalCounter
to
      *  Data type semantics: quantity

The description is pretty clear that this IE is a maximum value and not a counter.

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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8045 (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-17)
--------------------------------------
Title               : RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting
Publication Date    : January 2017
Author(s)           : D. Cheng, J. Korhonen, M. Boucadair, S. Sivakumar
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : RADIUS EXTensions
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:00:55 +0200

Hi,

[removing the rfc-editor and copying the IPFIX IE doctors]
If this errata is accepted by the IPFIX IE doctors, we would have to 
change the IANA registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml
So we would have to go for a new IPFIX IE revision, according to the 
procedure in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7013#section-5.2

Regards, B.

> .