[AVTCORE] Erratas on RFC 4867 (The AMR RTP Payload Format)

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073841B2F96; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.59
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zJS00tn_ZcHr; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15261B2F92; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79356d000006281-05-55ae6e58ab08
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EE.DF.25217.85E6EA55; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:07:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by smtp.internal.ericsson.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:07:51 +0200
To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>, "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <55AE6E55.4090309@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:07:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090403010507040300030401"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW5E3rpQg/1XzC1e9qxkt7h08SyT A5PHkiU/mQIYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgy7p45yFpwajtjxcdvb1gaGNdPYexi5OSQEDCRuLvm KRuELSZx4d56IJuLQ0jgKKPEi0f9jBDOckaJm3PXg3WICHhKLNi1EKyDTcBC4uaPRjBbWMBS YtGsK0wgNq+AtsT+IzuYQWwWAVWJu/u62EFsUYEYifkrpjND1AhKnJz5hAXEZhYIkGjfcxLM FgLqbWjqYJ3AyDsLSdksJGWzGDmAbHuJB1vLIMLyEs1bZzNDhP0lFjwKhQhrSyxb+JoZwnaW WH91PtMCRvZVjKLFqcXFuelGRnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIFhenDLb6sdjAefOx5iFOBgVOLh XbB8bagQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd4Zm/NChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTB25BVv urVqzXsWl3MnZ6xynZBh/G+ubdgidrcqVZ3+VTuCOAtPp/se3P1HeT2fyW69R/uTbjLw1Jxl t93BunOXWXhd+aLcKz5J7Z6vI66za6h3zNCbGd85K+TMnNvKN6O8Mnel/NnJ8pLXT9T9cUKT c4WodeYdtx8TpGt45j1NaM4+svsj6wQlluKMREMt5qLiRADTdlOdNAIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3P9rc6dO0bno6h6T3xHEm8ArnH8>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Erratas on RFC 4867 (The AMR RTP Payload Format)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:07:59 -0000


There has been three erratas submitted toward RFC 4867 the AMR RTP 
payload format:

The numbers for the Erratas are 4347, 4348, and 4349.

I am one of the co-authors and I want to resolve these erratas. I am 
sending this to both AVTCORE and PAYLOAD WG due to that the erratas 
arriving on AVTCORE's mailing list, but is more in PAYLOAD's scope. So 
please keep both lists in the reply. Any judgment of the consensus will 
be done by Roni Even.

They are all related to text regarding the usage of the Codec Mode 
Request field. Unclarities and contradictions in the RFC has caused 
interoperability problems. These have been discussed in 3GPP SA4 and 
they have discussed and agreed on this proposal for addressing these 

The proposed changes can be seen in the errata as well as the 
motivations. I have produced a side-by-side diff for the text changes 
which is attached to make it easier to see what is proposed to be 
changed in the text.

 From my perspective these erratas should be VERIFIED. The reason is 
that the changes proposed appear to be enforcing what I can remember 
being the intention of the document, but being more easier to understand 
and without the conflict. However, there has been substantial amount of 
time since this was specified and people may have other views. Thus, I 
really like to see if someone disagree with that the erratas encode the 
intention and therefore should not be VERIFIED.

It would be good if people could provide any feedback no later than the 
22nd of August.


Magnus Westerlund

Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com