Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[Julius Friedman <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, I appreciate being a part of something which will enable the
improvement of the quality of software engineered the world over.

I will create a draft for both rtp and the others,  I will ever go as far
to address the draft of rtsp.

However,  before beginning I would like there to be an acknowledgement of
the given errata so it can be justified that time be spent working on the
draft.

Even if its held for update, (which it seems there are already at least one
without my additions) it would allow me to address these issues and outline
both the relationship and determine if a new version be specified in the
draft or if just the same version be specified but with changes given or to
make the draft correct for the initial standard (which would involve
keeping track of the entities in question to properly calculate the given
terms)of which options is the very least desirable to me.

If a new version is specified I even will go as far to acknowledge all the
back to rtp 1 to ensure that all variations are specified partly because I
have identified version 0 as potentially another version (4) or explicitly
marking it as reserved for compatibility with VAT.

I will also address that uncompressed video be supported abd pcm be
supported at a minimum.

I also have changes which can remove dependence on media clock rate which
will simplify overall general calculations for jitter and the like, since
again they would be know or determinate and also incorrect which shouldn't
make calculations invalid.

Hopefully you and everyone else sees that I have a lot of considerations /
ideas and that I don't want to flood the working group with such problems
if they can be avoided however with web rtc becoming mainstream I believe
we need to address these issues today rather than tomorrow and I will do
whatever work is necessary to ensure the standards are correct and
encompass the best possible principles of engineering possible but I need
to know that the work is both utilized and understood otherwise it will be
for nothing.

Hopefully it's not too much to ask and thanks again and I appreciate your
time and effort in this matter as well as that of the committees.

Sincerely,
Julius Richard Friedman
On Dec 10, 2014 3:09 PM, "Tom Taylor" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I wasn't explicit enough. You should take the ideas you present below and
> put them into an Internet Draft, then submit it for publication and
> discussion.
>
> Have a look at the tutorials at http://www.ietf.org/edu/tutorials.html to
> help you get started. And welcome to the IETF as a new participant.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> On 10/12/2014 2:52 PM, Julius Friedman wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Taylor, AVT.
>>
>> Thus it was my reasons for explicitly opening this discussion.
>>
>> Possibly the errata name and notes and focus could be shifted but as is
>> the
>> case with many things in science, not to diverge but the points are
>> simple:
>>
>> ...
>>
>