Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

Julius Friedman <[e-mail]> writes:
> However,  before beginning I would like there to be an acknowledgement of
> the given errata so it can be justified that time be spent working on the
> draft.

You've already been told that the erratum will be rejected, since the
RFC does, in fact, correctly describe what the working group intended
for it to describe.

You believe that the information the protocol carries is not the
information that it *should* carry.  That is a complex technical
judgement that can only be made by the working group as a whole.  The
way to get the working group to consider the question is to write an
Internet-Draft and then raise the question on the appropriate working
group mailing list.

> Even if its held for update, (which it seems there are already at least one
> without my additions) it would allow me to address these issues and outline
> both the relationship and determine if a new version be specified in the
> draft or if just the same version be specified but with changes given or to
> make the draft correct for the initial standard (which would involve
> keeping track of the entities in question to properly calculate the given
> terms)of which options is the very least desirable to me.
>
> If a new version is specified I even will go as far to acknowledge all the
> back to rtp 1 to ensure that all variations are specified partly because I
> have identified version 0 as potentially another version (4) or explicitly
> marking it as reserved for compatibility with VAT.
>
> I will also address that uncompressed video be supported abd pcm be
> supported at a minimum.
>
> I also have changes which can remove dependence on media clock rate which
> will simplify overall general calculations for jitter and the like, since
> again they would be know or determinate and also incorrect which shouldn't
> make calculations invalid.
>
> Hopefully you and everyone else sees that I have a lot of considerations /
> ideas and that I don't want to flood the working group with such problems
> if they can be avoided however with web rtc becoming mainstream I believe
> we need to address these issues today rather than tomorrow and I will do
> whatever work is necessary to ensure the standards are correct and
> encompass the best possible principles of engineering possible but I need
> to know that the work is both utilized and understood otherwise it will be
> for nothing.
>
> Hopefully it's not too much to ask and thanks again and I appreciate your
> time and effort in this matter as well as that of the committees.

All of these matters can only be handled by the working group as a
whole.  They are excellent items to address in an Internet-Draft.

Dale