Found 1 record.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 8762, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", March 2020

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 8972

Errata ID: 8518
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, HTML
Reported By: Will Hawkins
Date Reported: 2025-07-22
Rejected by: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Rejected: 2025-08-05

Section 4.3.1-4.5 says:

The Session-Sender TTL field is one octet long, and its value is
the copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the
received STAMP-Test packet.

It should say:

The Session-Sender TTL field is one octet long, and its value is
the copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the
received STAMP-Test packet. If an implementation cannot fetch the
actual TTL value from the TTL field (or Hop Limit) in the IP
header of the received STAMP-Test packet, it MUST set the Session-
Sender TTL value as 255.

Notes:

The RFC contains no language describing the value that the reflector should include in the Session Sender TTL field of a reflected STAMP packet if the TTL value cannot be read from the IP header of the test packet. The language seems to presume that fetching the TTL is always possible. Having a description for the behavior of an implementation when that is not the case would help the life of the implementer.

As an added benefit of defining the behavior in the "error case", there would be an increase in the compatibility between STAMP and TWAMP Light. TWAMP Light, as a result of its reliance on TWAMP, specifies the behavior of an implementation that cannot fetch the TTL value from a test packet (and is the source of the suggested language given above).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Per the discussion at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/QhoDmae-983IKn_HFF1XCADWP0s/, filling an erratum is not appropriate here given that there is nothing wrong with the existing text. In addition, the new update require the WG consensus . This is better handled in a document that updates this RFC.

Report New Errata