[tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (5458)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 12 August 2018 23:33 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 B83CF130E46 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 FFpUrd0lyJpf for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30B9312F1A5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9C2DCB819E8; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: mallman@icir.org, vern@icir.org, eblanton@cs.purdue.edu, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, michael.scharf@nokia.com, tuexen@fh-muenster.de, nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jmccauley@cs.berkeley.edu, tcpm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180812233312.9C2DCB819E8@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:33:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/bLBLc-spZS3ZLX9bqD2IIZazlYQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:13:24 -0700
Subject: [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: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 23:33:22 -0000
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. 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
- [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (5458) RFC Errata System
- Re: [tcpm] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5681 (5… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)