Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194)
"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Tue, 17 April 2012 18:35 UTC
Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
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 0C04121F84EE for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 gG2Z9c--qWQf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9702321F84F1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=2438; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334687709; x=1335897309; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=lshf9CYjwzlvDCxuo5gTYssQDTc6RCPithhpeWPrSNg=; b=Hf44uHIFrb8FPxOQ/aPEL6knQ136wNPwYMqFZrtStpmhbKEETiR0en38 IN2ELv9AN5s7gNXj7n+eMGHCxZjbDv3vsIun9igF2yD31VB2sX4Zxlx3B zfoUnt9dVquMLPYBGj1MUJuhaJl9bP4qlBpEHA70jwidJ8BilRMhaRPWS 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,436,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="37845400"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2012 18:35:09 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3HIZ8Rf011173; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:35:08 GMT
Message-Id: <201204171835.q3HIZ8Rf011173@mtv-core-2.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:35:07 -0500
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194)
In-Reply-To: <47D41F4E-BDFD-4210-A1D0-DC60DB91C77B@cisco.com>
References: <20120417072440.B3CDB62199@rfc-editor.org> <47D41F4E-BDFD-4210-A1D0-DC60DB91C77B@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, mdolly@att.com, jmpolk@cisco.com, sergey.antipov@nsn.com, tsvwg@ietf.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 18:35:14 -0000
Nor am I. At 02:44 AM 4/17/2012, Fred Baker wrote: >I am not opposed to the erratum. > >On Apr 17, 2012, at 12:24 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > > > > 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
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194) Fred Baker
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5865 (3194) James M. Polk