[Technical Errata Reported] RFC6016 (2557)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 12 October 2010 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872513A6A1E for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.293, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4LM6em8sPBWX for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904E23A69B0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 858A8E06F2; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: bsd@cisco.com, flefauch@cisco.com, ashokn@cisco.com, ietfdbh@comcast.net, lars.eggert@nokia.com, jmpolk@cisco.com, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6016 (2557)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20101012180148.858A8E06F2@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:01:48 -0700
Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de, tsvwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 12 Oct 2010 18:00:37 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6016, "Support for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3 VPNs". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6016&eid=2557 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Section: 4, pg. 15 Original Text ------------- [[ last paragraph of Section 4 ]] To achieve effective admission control in the backbone, there needs to be some way to separate the data-plane traffic that has a reservation from that which does not. We assume that packets that are subject to admission control on the core will be given a | particular MPLS EXP value, and that no other packets will be allowed to enter the core with this value unless they have passed admission control. Some fraction of link resources will be allocated to queues | on core links for packets bearing that EXP value, and the MPLS-TE tunnels will use that resource pool to make their constraint-based routing and admission control decisions. This is all consistent with the principles of aggregate RSVP reservations described in [RFC3175]. Corrected Text -------------- To achieve effective admission control in the backbone, there needs to be some way to separate the data-plane traffic that has a reservation from that which does not. We assume that packets that are subject to admission control on the core will be given a | particular MPLS Traffic Class value, and that no other packets will be allowed to enter the core with this value unless they have passed admission control. Some fraction of link resources will be allocated | to queues on core links for packets bearing that Traffic Class value, and the MPLS-TE tunnels will use that resource pool to make their constraint-based routing and admission control decisions. This is all consistent with the principles of aggregate RSVP reservations described in [RFC3175]. 5 Notes ----- Rationale: s/EXP/Traffic Class/ ! RFC 5462 has carefully changed the terminology and updated numerous RFCs; it has given a detailed explantion why this needs to be done consistently and confirmed that all future RFCs should unconditionally use the updated terms. (See also EID 2547 for RFC 5994.) 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. -------------------------------------- RFC6016 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-07) -------------------------------------- Title : Support for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3 VPNs Publication Date : October 2010 Author(s) : B. Davie, F. Le Faucheur, A. Narayanan Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Transport Area Working Group Area : Transport Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6016 (2557) RFC Errata System