RFC 5559, "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture", June 2009Source of RFC: pcn (tsv)
Errata ID: 3164
Reported By: Bob Briscoe
Date Reported: 2012-03-23
Verifier Name: Wes Eddy
Date Verified: 2012-04-27
Section 4.2 says:
o Police - police, by dropping any packets received with a DSCP indicating PCN transport that do not belong to an admitted flow. (A prospective PCN-flow that is rejected could be blocked or admitted into a lower-priority behaviour aggregate.)
It should say:
o Police - drop or re-mark to a lower-priority behaviour aggregate i) packets received with a DSCP indicating PCN transport that do not belong to an admitted flow and ii) packets that are part of a flow that asked to be admitted as a PCN-flow but was rejected.
In the original text the first sentence contradicts the parenthesis. It could be interpreted to mean that dropping is the only allowed policing action, whereas the parenthesis shows that downgrading was also considered appropriate.
Also the original text used the term 'blocking' as a different action to 'downgrading', whereas Section 3.6 just above this text has said '"Blocking" means it is dropped or downgraded to a lower-priority behaviour aggregate,...'