RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5681, "TCP Congestion Control", September 2009

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9438

Source of RFC: tcpm (wit)
See Also: RFC 5681 w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 5458
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: James McCauley
Date Reported: 2018-08-12
Verifier Name: Mirja Kühlewind
Date Verified: 2018-08-13

Section 2 says:

   DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: An acknowledgment is considered a
      "duplicate" in the following algorithms when (a) the receiver of
      the ACK has outstanding data, (b) the incoming acknowledgment
      carries no data, (c) the SYN and FIN bits are both off, (d) the
      acknowledgment number is equal to the greatest acknowledgment
      received on the given connection (TCP.UNA from [RFC793]) and (e)
      the advertised window in the incoming acknowledgment equals the
      advertised window in the last incoming acknowledgment.

It should say:

   DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: An acknowledgment is considered a
      "duplicate" in the following algorithms when (a) the receiver of
      the ACK has outstanding data, (b) the incoming acknowledgment
      carries no data, (c) the SYN and FIN bits are both off, (d) the
      acknowledgment number is equal to the greatest acknowledgment
      received on the given connection (SND.UNA from [RFC793]) and (e)
      the advertised window in the incoming acknowledgment equals the
      advertised window in the last incoming acknowledgment.

Notes:

There is no such thing as TCP.UNA in RFC793. The boundary between acknowledged and unacknowledged sent data is SND.UNA.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search