Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[Julius Friedman <[e-mail]>]

So then are you implying that it would be correct to change the definition
of timestamp and other such proposed changes while not allowing this one?

Have I not show that it is incorrect to take the transit time including the
header but then send only the "payload" count in the report?

Even when the definition and calulcations just explicitly given show that
the times taken include ANY data transfer including non rtp?

Making the change in text makes this calulcations correct and unambiguous
just as the other proposed changes which are being contemplated.

It also allows for more than correctness by showing when a route is
altered.

What reason is there to acknowledge this but reject the errata only to
propose a new draft?
On Dec 11, 2014 12:30 PM, "Simon Perreault" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Julius Friedman <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> How can the items be excellent for a draft but not consideration for
>> errata?
>
>
> Errata is appropriate when an RFC doesn't reflect what the working group
> meant.
> A draft is appropriate when an RFC does reflect what the working group
> meant, but the working group was wrong.
>
> Simon
>