Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[Julius Friedman <[e-mail]>]

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
>
> On 10/12/2014 1:22 AM, Julius Friedman wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Casner / Audio Video Working Group.
>>
>> Sincerely thank you for responding in a manner which clearly shows that
>> you
>> have taken the time to acknowledge my inquiry. I know my previous emails
>> were hastily written and this one is probably not much better but I will
>> endeavor to express my concerns and points and then in summary ask you
>> respond at least once again.
>>
>> I would like to first start of by saying that if I did have functions
>> which
>> are not specified they would not be standard and hence not relevant for
>> errata, the reason I wrote this errata is because I know that others have
>> also had issues when reading that sentence (and multiple others in the Rtp
>> RFC [3550]) and I would like to clarify if nothing else why I believe it
>> is
>> errata and why it can potentially be a security risk.
>> ...
>>
>