[aqm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8033 (7108)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 31 August 2022 15:59 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 27D22C14F745 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.658 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 VMAGs_MdmgYo for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [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 52420C14F6EC for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id B3665AB20A; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: g.white@cablelabs.com, ropan@cisco.com, prenatar@cisco.com, fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com, g.white@cablelabs.com, aqm@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220831155947.B3665AB20A@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:59:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Z6rafu2XBS_MyOm8_faDBvIcro0>
Subject: [aqm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8033 (7108)
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, 31 Aug 2022 15:59:52 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8033,
"Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7108

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>

Section: 5.1 & 10.2

Original Text
-------------
5.1.  ECN Support

   PIE MAY support ECN by marking (rather than dropping) ECN-capable
   packets [ECN].  ...

...



10.2.  Informative References
...

   [ECN]      Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler,
              "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to
              Protocols that Encapsulate IP", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07, July 2016.
...

Corrected Text
--------------
5.1.  ECN Support

   PIE MAY support ECN by marking (rather than dropping) ECN-capable
   packets [RFC3168].  ...

...



10.2.  Informative References
...

   [RFC3168]      Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, 
                  "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification 
                  (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, 
                  September 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
...

Notes
-----
The reference provided for ECN points to the incorrect IETF document.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8033 (draft-ietf-aqm-pie-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem
Publication Date    : February 2017
Author(s)           : R. Pan, P. Natarajan, F. Baker, G. White
Category            : EXPERIMENTAL
Source              : Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG