Subject: [ippm] Clearing errata 397, RFC 2681, A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:26:06 -0400

We've been asked to clear outstanding errata.  There is some
long-outstanding errata on RFC 2679, 2680 and 2681.  This is for RFC
2681.  To see the original (text below)
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=397>; guidelines for
how to clear errata on IESG documents are at
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt>.

My proposed response is below.  If anyone feels it should be otherwise,
let me or the list know.  I will send it in to Lars for processing next
week...

--Matt

-=-=-=-

This one is clearly in IPPM purview.

The errata is valid, and should be classified as "Technical".

I think it could cause confusion for implementors, however the
confusion should cause one to look deeper, and understand there is an
error here.  It is in an example, and hasn't caused anyone else a
problem in 10 years.

I recommend the Errata be 'Hold for Docment Update', and I would add
something to the "It should say" to point to the IPPM Percentile
definition in 2330:

"
Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100 msec
are smaller and 500 msec and 'undefined' are larger.  See Section 11.3
of [1] for computing percentiles.
"

-----

RFC2681, "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", September 1999

Source of RFC: Legacy

Errata ID: 397

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Andrew Main
Date Reported: 2002-11-18

Section 4.1 says:

   Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100
   msec are smaller and 110 msec and 'undefined' are larger.

It should say:

   Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100
   msec are smaller and 500 msec and 'undefined' are larger.

Notes: