Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

We are saying that regardless of considerations of implementation, the 
IETF requires that changes of this sort be achieved using certain 
procedures. The current wording of RFC 3550 was achieved through Working 
Group consensus, and that is what would be required for further changes. 
The way to achieve that is through the writing of an Internet Draft and 
list discussion. So far there has been no indication of Working Group 
interest in your interpretation, but who knows?

I have not seen your errata for the other two documents, presumably 
because they went to a different E-mail list, but the same procedural 
considerations apply.

Tom Taylor

On 10/12/2014 2:00 PM, Julius Friedman wrote:
> Thank you Mr. Taylor.
>
> The bottom line is that even given the verbiage existing that it is simply
> invalid to calculate the rate of just the payload using the time including
> other data.
>
> That itself is errata.
>
> If the change is made as I suggested then existing hardware (even if it not
> updated with the new logic) will be able to be at least detected using my
> change.
>
> Some implementations already use this information in the count anyway and
> would thus be valid instead of invalid (with no change).
>
> There are bigger fish to fry such as the location and content of the
> padding, of which the location is the most important for detection of
> completion of the packet.
>
> We need to address one or the other and then it can validate your equations
> existing (but would still require a change to the location of the offset of
> the padding) or as I suggested for this errata to change the wording or the
> name.
>
> Both are really in order it's just a matter of how its done and not hastily
> but after consideration I would suggest that if "compatibility" with
> existing hardware is most important then to update just the name and
> indicate my errata as a name change only and why so that it can be adjusted
> for as best as possible where required; then to file more errata to change
> the location of the padding or just start work on a new version of the rtp
> standard with ambiguous definitions removed.
>
> Thank you for your time and effort and I look forward to your dialog in
> this matter!
>
> Can you also please check my RFC2435 Errata and RFC2326 Errata so I can
> discuss those as well?
>
> Sincerely,
> Julius Richard Friedman
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen's point is that you are proposing a protocol change. That cannot
>> be done by way of an erratum. If you want to write an Internet Draft with
>> your proposals, they can be debated. I wonder if you could use the XR
>> capability to get the information you want?
>>
>> Tom Taylor
>>
...