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

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.

Report New Errata