Hi Timothy, Just an FYI that we edited your note as below. Please let us know any objections or concerns.
OLD: Notes ----- "DCCP-STD" is nowhere defined, and so is presumably a typo for "DCCP-STD". NEW: Notes ----- "DCCP-STP" is nowhere defined, and so is presumably a typo for "DCCP-STD”. Thank you. RFC Editor/mf On Apr 5, 2016, at 3:46 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6773, > "DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for NAT > Traversal". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6773&eid=4655 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Timothy Pederick <[email protected]> > > Section: 1 > > Original Text > ------------- > Network optimisations for DCCP-STP and UDP may need to be updated to > allow these optimisations to take advantage of DCCP-UDP. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Network optimisations for DCCP-STD and UDP may need to be updated to > allow these optimisations to take advantage of DCCP-UDP. > > Notes > ----- > "DCCP-STD" is nowhere defined, and so is presumably a typo for "DCCP-STD". > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6773 (draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-11) > -------------------------------------- > Title : DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP > Encapsulation for NAT Traversal > Publication Date : November 2012 > Author(s) : T. Phelan, G. Fairhurst, C. Perkins > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Datagram Congestion Control Protocol > Area : Transport > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
