[aqm] [Errata Verified] RFC8087 (7586)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 18 January 2024 23:59 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 CB2ACC14CE31; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)
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 chZBAlsGsWEd; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [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 42A3DC14CE25; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 38D1C18F3921; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:59:10 -0800 (PST)
To: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, michawe@ifi.uio.no
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240118235910.38D1C18F3921@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:59:10 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/deBlOy6EtgUB6RvrmVmcC65MfbI>
Subject: [aqm] [Errata Verified] 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: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 23:59:10 -0000
The following errata report has been verified 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 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2023-08-02 Verified by: Martin Duke (IESG) 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. -------------------------------------- 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] [Errata Verified] RFC8087 (7586) RFC Errata System