[tsvwg] [Errata Rejected] RFC3168 (4997)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 20 April 2020 15:32 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 069A73A08E3; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 NND-h1ifc22v; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:32:12 -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 59FAE3A095C; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4AA72F406F0; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: heard@pobox.com, kk@teraoptic.com, floyd@aciri.org, black_david@emc.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.h.duke@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200420153209.4AA72F406F0@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:32:09 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/XjAB2qi9pFhtgEOdh_Yh_hduq5s>
Subject: [tsvwg] [Errata Rejected] RFC3168 (4997)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:32:14 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC3168,
"The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4997

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported by: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
Date Reported: 2017-04-17
Rejected by: Martin Duke (IESG)

Section: Header

Original Text
-------------
Updates: 2474, 2401, 793

Corrected Text
--------------
Updates: 2474, 2460, 2401, 793



Notes
-----
RFC 3168 updates RFC 2460 but does not indicate this in its header block.

Specifically, Section 5.3 of RFC 3168 requires that the ECN field of a reassembled IPv6 datagram be calculated from the ECN fields of all of the fragments, rather than simply copying it from the initial fragment as specified in RFC 2460.

There are other missing Updates: fields; see e.g. Erratum 2660.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
This is a borderline case, as RFC 2474 already changes the semantics of this field and is correctly listed in the Updates field. Anyway, this would be "Hold for Document Update", but RFC 2460 has already been updated with RFC 8200.

--------------------------------------
RFC3168 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
Publication Date    : September 2001
Author(s)           : K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Transport Area Working Group
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG