IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] Summary of AVTCORE WG's Errata decisions

Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <finlayson@live555.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 7027B1A8A6B for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:16:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, TVD_FROM_1=0.999, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 HVOLYINJJYjk for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns.live555.com (ns.live555.com [4.79.217.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC17E1A8A4F for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.live555.com [127.0.0.1]) by ns.live555.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1JAG5YC046096; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 02:16:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from finlayson@live555.com)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D291B11D-AD21-4D3A-80B0-783DD940CBEE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E1AD84.80805@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:16:05 +1300
Message-Id: <C4BB3EB6-390E-4E8A-BE0E-1E0D6C5881C6@live555.com>
References: <54E1AD84.80805@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/I8jhDGAa4YEmELMtGAmdjEBbyB8>
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Summary of AVTCORE WG's Errata decisions
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:19 -0000

> On Feb 16, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> 
> ADs,
> 
> Here is a current summary of the Erratas that are in reported state for
> the AVT WG (AVTCORE has no reported Errata)

FYI, last August I reported a minor bug (email copied below) in RFC 3711 (SRTP).  IMHO, this should be added to the RFC 3711 errata at some point...



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com <mailto:finlayson@live555.com>>
> Subject: Minor bug in RFC 3711 (SRTP), FYI
> Date: August 10, 2014 at 5:57:22 PM GMT+12
> Cc: avt@ietf.org <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
> To: mbaugher@cisco.com <mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com>, elisabetta.carrara@ericsson.com <mailto:elisabetta.carrara@ericsson.com>, mcgrew@cisco.com <mailto:mcgrew@cisco.com>, mats.naslund@ericsson.com <mailto:mats.naslund@ericsson.com>, karl.norrman@ericsson.com <mailto:karl.norrman@ericsson.com>
> 
> In section 3.4 ("Secure RTCP"), there is a bug in "Figure 2. An example of the format of a Secure RTCP packet..."
> 
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<+
>      |V=2|P|    RC   |   PT=SR or RR   |             length          | |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
> 
> The boundary between the "PT=SR or RR" and the "length" fields is wrong: The boundary is shown as being between bits 16 and 17; it should be between bits 15 and 16.  I.e., the "PT=SR or RR" field should be 8 bits long, not 9.
> 
> This is just a minor bug, because the equivalent diagram in RFC 3550 (the normative reference for RTCP) is correct.  Nonetheless, this bug should probably be added to the errata for RFC 3711
> 
> Ross Finlayson
> Live Networks, Inc.
> http://www.live555.com/ <http://www.live555.com/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email