Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (5458)

Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Mon, 13 August 2018 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D3D130E94 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5iBdd4vQuBE for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26DD130E91 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.18.127.168] (unknown [46.183.103.17]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B2972106C13; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:01:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Message-Id: <FF03ED2A-B3D6-4F2D-8AD4-DCC598916F9A@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8BAEB295-C8FC-40F3-A849-C2B79C3D26E5"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:01:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20180812233312.9C2DCB819E8@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mallman@icir.org, vern@icir.org, eblanton@cs.purdue.edu, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, michael.scharf@nokia.com, nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp, jmccauley@cs.berkeley.edu, tcpm@ietf.org
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180812233312.9C2DCB819E8@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/4h--ic1Ai-zM-cRAwN2odyo5sk4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:13:04 -0700
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (5458)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:01:51 -0000

> On 13. Aug 2018, at 01:33, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5681,
> "TCP Congestion Control".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5458
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: James McCauley <jmccauley@cs.berkeley.edu>
> 
> Section: 2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: An acknowledgment is considered a
>      "duplicate" in the following algorithms when (a) the receiver of
>      the ACK has outstanding data, (b) the incoming acknowledgment
>      carries no data, (c) the SYN and FIN bits are both off, (d) the
>      acknowledgment number is equal to the greatest acknowledgment
>      received on the given connection (TCP.UNA from [RFC793]) and (e)
>      the advertised window in the incoming acknowledgment equals the
>      advertised window in the last incoming acknowledgment.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: An acknowledgment is considered a
>      "duplicate" in the following algorithms when (a) the receiver of
>      the ACK has outstanding data, (b) the incoming acknowledgment
>      carries no data, (c) the SYN and FIN bits are both off, (d) the
>      acknowledgment number is equal to the greatest acknowledgment
>      received on the given connection (SND.UNA from [RFC793]) and (e)
>      the advertised window in the incoming acknowledgment equals the
>      advertised window in the last incoming acknowledgment.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> There is no such thing as TCP.UNA in RFC793.  The boundary between acknowledged and unacknowledged sent data is SND.UNA.
I agree.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5681 (draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : TCP Congestion Control
> Publication Date    : September 2009
> Author(s)           : M. Allman, V. Paxson, E. Blanton
> Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
> Source              : TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG