RFC Errata
Found 1 record.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 2597, "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", June 1999
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 3260
Source of RFC: diffserv (tsv)
Errata ID: 413
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Bud
Date Reported: 2005-05-24
Held for Document Update by: Wes Eddy
Section 1 says:
For example, if traffic conditioning actions at the ingress of the provider DS domain make sure that an AF class in the DS nodes is only moderately loaded by packets with the lowest drop precedence value and is not overloaded by packets with the two lowest drop precedence values, then the AF class can offer a high level of forwarding assurance for packets that are within the subscribed profile (i.e., marked with the lowest drop precedence value) and offer up to two lower levels of forwarding assurance for the excess traffic.
It should say:
For example, if traffic conditioning actions at the ingress of the provider DS domain make sure that an AF class in the DS nodes is only moderately loaded by packets with the lowest drop precedence value and is not overloaded by packets with the two higher drop precedence values, then the AF class can offer a high level of forwarding assurance for packets that are within the subscribed profile (i.e., marked with the lowest drop precedence value) and offer up to two lower levels of forwarding assurance for the excess traffic.