[AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com> Fri, 05 December 2014 21:13 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 C96851A1A9B for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:36 -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 kHJ88fai8p1i for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28B4C1A1A83 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ey11so1411369pad.38 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:13:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=oVs9KveAoj+uofOmuTUfCnOYbUfKvIx5aY9TGIIMcVE=; b=vodBCpBI5b+5SlGlJFk4G9/Wr8LZs0M5iA3jCnDW8raizoQwAtsSAiKRsgFk2F9JAW Le2mcfVqHz46cUIfS/Ht/DnbZsv/1kJZON/a2gkF/h+GGf2qzvOrqAZYpep5VPRG2sBr 0VsIu5gQOfGeowNuDRk0+fMxHxojxe8llVgVrLa9KrCErw2grATjLbJwkh9uOaQ821RD YT1Z9Y2AS88PbMJs3dwz/+KVH3WWqXDwMawwVF+1XrleO9gNvQ751CXkrx8hN9OsNnwg NIl6aWBNsNUAvI2MAE9N9EB9ncAJWEAze864bRowOk7loiV+dz6E3KSRkYLiVVgQFsLW hS5Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.70.33.106 with SMTP id q10mr31597891pdi.120.1417814014478; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.52.8 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.52.8 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACFvNHWSJsJ2mgALRG9Vw5bvMa84srxuEC8aYqUk4tPK=DJ1sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACFvNHUHH1rv2OmcFGvRA+AnotmACrOHbqb8VdAJpY4w8ORiig@mail.gmail.com> <CACFvNHWSJsJ2mgALRG9Vw5bvMa84srxuEC8aYqUk4tPK=DJ1sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:13:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CACFvNHWz0m0RxHznS8r3cfEJJurV7KVLLUuxXN-JyAYH4FKtHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
To: avt@ietf.org, Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>, Ron Frederick <ron.frederick@bluecoat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfd0836b0f98705097e8c65"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/9Qhb2dB24T1YPrekz7sSXAp76FY
Subject: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550
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, 05 Dec 2014 21:13:37 -0000

Hello All.

There is definitely some confusion related to the errata I submitted for
RFC3550.

The RFC clearly states:

sender's octet count: 32 bits
      The total number of payload octets (i.e., not including header or
      padding) transmitted in RTP data packets by the sender since
      starting transmission up until the time this SR packet was
      generated.  The count SHOULD be reset if the sender changes its
      SSRC identifier.  This field can be used to estimate the average
      payload data rate.

Just because it CAN be used for an average does not mean it should.

Further it is the total number of octets in the payload besides the header
because the header is always 12 octets.

Since csrc and extension octets are included then padding should be also.

Since rtcp also reflects the count with padding this is obviously correct.

Any padding only packet would not change the counter for rtp and is thus a
security issue as well as a redundantly conveyed piece of information
because each packet contains the number of padding bytes which can be
accounted for in the implementation when required.

To account for padding when padding is not required and would be 0 is also
contradictory.

Please read and re read the errata if required.

Please advise.  ( intelligently )

Sincerely,
Julius Friedman