[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6016 (2555)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 12 October 2010 17:46 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 B93BC3A6A0A for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, 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 n2hEroQLFGHm for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6C73A6A0D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3D7CCE06EE; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:47:38 -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: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6016 (2555)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20101012174738.3D7CCE06EE@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:47:38 -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 17:46:24 -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=2555

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>

Section: 3.2,1st para

Original Text
-------------
   When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (step 3 of Section 2.1)
   the PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
   message on to the egress PE.  In the following paragraphs, we
|  described the steps taken by the ingress PE.



Corrected Text
--------------
   When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (step 3 of Section 2.1)
   the PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
   message on to the egress PE.  In the following paragraphs, we
|  describe the steps taken by the ingress PE.



Notes
-----
Rationale: inappropriate past tense; should be present tense.

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