[ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC3393 (6981)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 17 June 2022 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A884C157B5E; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.655
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=no 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 uJKBE3o8zKYq; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:36:51 -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 B178CC1594AF; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 7D2F5CD7F2; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: nmalykh@ieee.org, carlo.demichelis@tilab.com, chimento@torrentnet.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, iana@iana.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220617003651.7D2F5CD7F2@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:36:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/F-IHXxqPggIJcBrgrFv0agYfUS4>
Subject: [ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC3393 (6981)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:36:55 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC3393, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6981 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org> Date Reported: 2022-05-26 Verified by: RFC Editor Section: 2.7.1 Original Text ------------- It is the claim here (see remarks in section 1.3) that the effects of skew are rather small over the time scales that we are discussing here, since temperature variations in a system tend to be slow relative to packet inter-transmission times and the range of drift is so small. Corrected Text -------------- It is the claim here (see remarks in section 1.4) that the effects of skew are rather small over the time scales that we are discussing here, since temperature variations in a system tend to be slow relative to packet inter-transmission times and the range of drift is so small. Notes ----- Incorrect reference - 1.3 instead 1.4 -------------------------------------- RFC3393 (draft-ietf-ippm-ipdv-10) -------------------------------------- Title : IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Publication Date : November 2002 Author(s) : C. Demichelis, P. Chimento Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Performance Measurement Area : Transport Stream : IETF
- [ippm] [Errata Verified] RFC3393 (6981) RFC Errata System