[AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And Draft) regarding Blocksize
Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 08:47 UTC
Return-Path: <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C1D1A86E8; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BznhRQvnLWq0; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02391A701C; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id eu11so17237638pac.8; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:46:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=byX46TpXrPBGpmnd/HPvVJi5ytQxMSKEo5w4l6rlg4E=; b=eB1rXUWr3OA41bc7mAZXApMwkfQyOui8fsGaGr3ILtcSfAzoz+ZQTeSCs/K24IRQ4L MlQzf+PCzuzu4kC9bCVkavsr+B1i0zHjd3U/mZ1lZ6RSGTZHSWgjhLm/YC490Uu+hhTk Syu6kwzdhuc52txRdKWoFOtAntMCQ7MoOityKDK8z6RUTdl25NinkjZ0xBkoohI7iLmJ 8pYNIGxGVFp6KnDGk8wC14wiTCdxrEarba9Rt4S9/Fypur9vSgH5Ikwg8EkTd5jx+anE xydHMTjmG2xc4VjbTd9gQ6E0T1Vuasfp9d45JNoROrq82h2q+N9c1W0NGo5Wc61RzqEi N+EQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.226.166 with SMTP id rt6mr21825053pbc.120.1420793218851; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.117.99 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:46:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CACFvNHXwTm5k7Wiw65A=eSBEF9RqP4FJnNysziFik7vpnqrR4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
To: mmusic@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff246ed1bee84050c3433b2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/4wlWiklNAKRKCYI_jI5xABQMYJw>
Subject: [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And Draft) regarding Blocksize
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 08:47:02 -0000
Please see the following two paragraphs regarding Blocksize. 12.7 Blocksize This request header field is sent from the client to the media server asking the server for a particular media packet size. This packet size does not include lower-layer headers such as IP, UDP, or RTP. The server is free to use a blocksize which is lower than the one requested. The server MAY truncate this packet size to the closest multiple of the minimum, media-specific block size, or override it with the media-specific size if necessary. The block size MUST be a positive decimal number, measured in octets. The server only returns an error (416) if the value is syntactically invalid. 18.10 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-40#section-18.10>. Blocksize The Blocksize request-header field is sent from the client to the media server asking the server for a particular media packet size. This packet size does not include lower-layer headers such as IP, UDP, or RTP. The server is free to use a blocksize which is lower than the one requested. The server MAY truncate this packet size to the closest multiple of the minimum, media-specific block size, or override it with the media-specific size if necessary. The block size MUST be a positive decimal number, measured in octets. The server only returns an error (4xx) if the value is syntactically invalid. Both paragraphs go to specify that the number MUST be positive but specify no LOWER bound. A Blocksize of 12 or less will cause data loss under UDP and cause invalid framing under TCP. A Blocksize of >= 12 <= 20 will cause no payload data to be able to be sent in most profiles which utilize a 4 - 16 byte header. Therefore the minimum Blocksize must be 21 when RTP is in use and such a low number of octets in the payload (1) would cause unnecessary stain on the server. It should be noted that the Blocksize MUST be a positive decimal number greater than or equal to that supported by the underlying transport. This will prevent a client from undermining the MTU and attempting to force a server to fragment packets against protocol rules OR perform re-packetization which may interfere with packetization rates defined in SDP or profile specific headers which require a fixed header size greater than or equal to the specific Blocksize. It may also be worth noting that even if a valid number is given for Blocksize that the server would have to 're-packetize' the packet and in most cases a packet CANNOT be re-packetized without re-packetizing the entire frame where the packet was contained. This adds an unnecessary delay and causes differentiation in reporting to and from receivers especially in multicast situations. It is therefore recommended that Blocksize be only used during a 'OPTIONS' or 'SETUP' request and if the server does not support the given Blocksize that the status code returned be 'INFORMATIONAL' and the Blocksize header in the response should indicate the minimum required Blocksize. ----------------- I would like to file this errata as soon as possible if everyone agrees; If it's not erratum can we please also address this misnomer I seem to have. Thank you!
- [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And Dra… Julius Friedman
- Re: [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And… Julius Friedman
- Re: [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] New Possible Errata in RFC2326 (And… Dale R. Worley