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