RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 8033, "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem", February 2017

Source of RFC: aqm (tsv)

Errata ID: 5095
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Liang Tian
Date Reported: 2017-08-24
Verifier Name: Mirja Kühlewind
Date Verified: 2020-03-04

Section 5.2 says: 

      if PIE->in_measurement_ == TRUE:
         PIE->dq_count_ = PIE->dq_count_ + deque_pkt_size;
         if PIE->dq_count_ >= DQ_THRESHOLD then
            weight = DQ_THRESHOLD/2^16
            PIE->avg_dq_time_ = (now - PIE->measurement_start_) *
                                weight + PIE->avg_dq_time_ *
                                (1 - weight);
            PIE->dq_count_ = 0;
            PIE->measurement_start_ = now
         else
            PIE->in_measurement_ = FALSE;

It should say:

      if PIE->in_measurement_ == TRUE:
         PIE->dq_count_ = PIE->dq_count_ + deque_pkt_size;
         if PIE->dq_count_ >= DQ_THRESHOLD then
            weight = DQ_THRESHOLD/2^16
            PIE->avg_dq_time_ = (now - PIE->measurement_start_) *
                                weight + PIE->avg_dq_time_ *
                                (1 - weight);
            PIE->in_measurement_ = FALSE;

Notes:

There should not be an "else" because if PIE->dq_count_ >= DQ_THRESHOLD, this measurement is over: avg_dq_time is calculated and in_measurement is set to FALSE; otherwise dq_count has been increased before this "if" and now we wait for next packet. Resetting dq_count and measurement_start is not necessary because they will be set again when a new measurement begins.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 8033, "Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced (PIE): A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem", February 2017

Source of RFC: aqm (tsv)

Errata ID: 7108
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Greg White
Date Reported: 2022-08-31
Held for Document Update by: Martin Duke
Date Held: 2024-01-18

Section 5.1 & 10.2 says: 

5.1.  ECN Support

   PIE MAY support ECN by marking (rather than dropping) ECN-capable
   packets [ECN].  ...

...



10.2.  Informative References
...

   [ECN]      Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler,
              "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to
              Protocols that Encapsulate IP", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07, July 2016.
...

It should say:

5.1.  ECN Support

   PIE MAY support ECN by marking (rather than dropping) ECN-capable
   packets [RFC3168].  ...

...



10.2.  Informative References
...

   [RFC3168]      Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, 
                  "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification 
                  (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, 
                  September 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
...

Notes:

The reference provided for ECN points to the incorrect IETF document.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search