[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 17 April 2012 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B7C21F8551 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 WctZZm3p+2KF for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1072E21F854F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B3CDB62199; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
To: fred@cisco.com, jmpolk@cisco.com, mdolly@att.com, wes@mti-systems.com, martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, jmpolk@cisco.com
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20120417072440.B3CDB62199@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:24:40 -0700
Cc: sergey.antipov@nsn.com, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:25:41 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5865,
"A Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5865&eid=3194

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Sergey Antipov <sergey.antipov@nsn.com>

Section: 2.2

Original Text
-------------
   There are at least six major ways that capacity admission is done or
   has been proposed to be done for real-time applications.  Each will
   be described below, and Section 3 will judge which ones are likely to
   meet the requirements of the Admitted Telephony service class.  These
   include:


Corrected Text
--------------
   There are at least six major ways that capacity admission is done or
   has been proposed to be done for real-time applications.  Each will
   be described below, and Section 2.3 will judge which ones are likely to
   meet the requirements of the Admitted Telephony service class.  These
   include:


Notes
-----
Section 2.3 is the one, which recommends capacity admission procedures, while Section 3 summarizes proposed changes.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5865 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-07)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic
Publication Date    : May 2010
Author(s)           : F. Baker, J. Polk, M. Dolly
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Transport Area Working Group
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG