[AVTCORE] Possible Erratta in RFC2326 relating to 'source' parameter.

[Julius Friedman <[e-mail]>]

RFC2326 Specifies in Section [12.39 Transport]

 source:
          If the source address for the stream is different than can be
          derived from the RTSP endpoint address (the server in playback
          or the client in recording), the source MAY be specified.

Then directly below in the same section

 Transport           =    "Transport" ":"
                            1\#transport-spec
   transport-spec      =    transport-protocol/profile[/lower-transport]
                            *parameter
   transport-protocol  =    "RTP"
   profile             =    "AVP"
   lower-transport     =    "TCP" | "UDP"
   parameter           =    ( "unicast" | "multicast" )
                       |    ";" "destination" [ "=" address ]
                       |    ";" "interleaved" "=" channel [ "-" channel ]
                       |    ";" "append"
                       |    ";" "ttl" "=" ttl
                       |    ";" "layers" "=" 1*DIGIT
                       |    ";" "port" "=" port [ "-" port ]
                       |    ";" "client_port" "=" port [ "-" port ]
                       |    ";" "server_port" "=" port [ "-" port ]
                       |    ";" "ssrc" "=" ssrc
                       |    ";" "mode" = <"> 1\#mode <">
   ttl                 =    1*3(DIGIT)
   port                =    1*5(DIGIT)
   ssrc                =    8*8(HEX)
   channel             =    1*3(DIGIT)
   address             =    host
   mode                =    <"> *Method <"> | Method


Since 'source' is not listed I don't know the syntax, I assumed it to
be an "IPAddress" however the text sates "address" so I imagine if I
found a 'source=1.2.3.4:1554' that would be valid however I want to
make sure since there isn't any syntax specified in the RFC.

Also I would wonder is there any restriction on specifying a port or
address range also ? e.g. 'source=1.2.3.4/321202/2'

I believe there was a similar issue with Rtp-Info headers which was
fixed in 'biz' however this among other issues were not addressed and
I am wondering if any other updates will be made to this RFC before
2.0 Draft is finalized.

Hopefully this won't have to be added to my list of `issues` but
unless I am missing something I will also have to file errata for
this.

Thanks in advance!