Re: [PCN] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5559 (3164)

"Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu> Sat, 24 March 2012 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECF821F8550 for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AaJRPkyg1bJF for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D4921F84DA for <pcn@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (unknown [10.35.2.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0551E90E0; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ENTWHUBT0000001.university.harvard.edu (10.32.8.202) by ENTWEDGE0000000.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:37:52 -0400
Received: from ENTWEXMB0000004.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.3.128]) by ENTWHUBT0000001.university.harvard.edu ([10.32.8.202]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:38:27 -0400
From: "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5559 (3164)
Thread-Index: AQHNCao+D4iki1rBOE2QGIRN0w+uMQ==
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1AA59456-4739-48BB-8F69-B495524F402B@harvard.edu>
References: <20120323205327.981B9B1E002@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120323205327.981B9B1E002@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [136.248.127.162]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E0F1DC39050D7C41BA896FA7C7CF8E8B@Exchange.university.harvard.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<pcn@ietf.org>" <pcn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PCN] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5559 (3164)
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:50 -0000

this looks correct to me and I think it should be accepted

Scott

On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:53 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:

> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5559,
> "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5559&eid=3164
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
> 
> Section: 4.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   o  Police - police, by dropping any packets received with a DSCP
>      indicating PCN transport that do not belong to an admitted flow.
>      (A prospective PCN-flow that is rejected could be blocked or
>      admitted into a lower-priority behaviour aggregate.)
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   o  Police - drop or re-mark to a lower-priority behaviour aggregate
>      i) packets received with a DSCP indicating PCN transport that do not
>      belong to an admitted flow and ii) packets that are part of a flow
>      that asked to be admitted as a PCN-flow but was rejected.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> In the original text the first sentence contradicts the parenthesis. It could be interpreted to mean that dropping is the only allowed policing action, whereas the parenthesis shows that downgrading was also considered appropriate.
> 
> Also the original text used the term 'blocking' as a different action to 'downgrading', whereas Section 3.6 just above this text has said '"Blocking" means it is dropped or downgraded to a lower-priority behaviour aggregate,...'
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5559 (draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture
> Publication Date    : June 2009
> Author(s)           : P. Eardley, Ed.
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG