Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 5559, "Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Architecture", June 2009

Errata ID: 3164
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
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.

Notes:

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,...'

Errata ID: 3565
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Welzl
Date Reported: 2013-03-26
Verifier Name: Martin Stiemerling
Date Verified: 2013-04-10

Section 10.2 says:

   [Moncaster09-1]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
                    Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion
                    Information", Work in Progress, May 2009.

It should say:

   [Moncaster09-1]  Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and M. Menth, "Baseline
                    Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion
                    Information", RFC 5696, November 2009.

Report New Errata