[aqm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8087 (7586)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 02 August 2023 03:08 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E008C151B09 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRvLUyXXVh-Q for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2186CC151B08 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id ED55ACD7D1; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, michawe@ifi.uio.no, aqm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230802030755.ED55ACD7D1@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2023 20:07:55 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/NFwnJHUg_2HFftgCZMPKk5CuLs4>
Subject: [aqm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8087 (7586)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 03:08:00 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8087, "The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7586 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Section: 1 Original Text ------------- The ECT(0) codepoint '01' and the ECT(1) codepoint '10' both indicate that the transport protocol using the IP layer supports the use of ECN. Corrected Text -------------- The ECT(0) codepoint '10' and the ECT(1) codepoint '01' both indicate that the transport protocol using the IP layer supports the use of ECN. Notes ----- Figure 1, immediately afterwards, has the correct codepoints, which are consistent with RFC 3168. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8087 (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08) -------------------------------------- Title : The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Publication Date : March 2017 Author(s) : G. Fairhurst, M. Welzl Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [aqm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8087 (7586) RFC Errata System