[AVTCORE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4103 (5032)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 07 June 2017 19:48 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3979413148A for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Dw77KQHEJ6ih for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BEAC12EBF9 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 299C9B81170; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se, paulej@packetizer.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se, avt@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20170607194827.299C9B81170@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:48:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/Y93KYpi78kiSPCWyR68npuQ-eGE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:17:57 -0700
Subject: [AVTCORE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4103 (5032)
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 19:48:33 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4103, "RTP Payload for Text Conversation". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5032 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Section: 5.2 Original Text ------------- After an idle period, the transmitter SHOULD set the M-bit to one in the first packet with new text. Corrected Text -------------- After an idle period, the transmitter SHOULD set the M-bit to one in the first packet with new text. A number of approaches can be taken for how to compose the initial packets in the session, and the packets sent at resumption after an idle period. In order to harmonize transmitter behavior, and fulfill requirements in RFC 2198[3] and RFC 4102[9], transmitters SHOULD apply the following mechanism: Initially in the session and at resumption of transmission after an idle period, when redundancy is used, the packets to send SHOULD contain the same level of redundancy as specified for the session. If redundant data for the specified number of generations is not available for transmission, empty T140blocks SHOULD be inserted in the packet for transmission to make it contain the specified level of redundancy. Notes ----- RFC 4103 does not exactly specify how to compose the first packets in the session and the packets after an idle period, when redundancy is used in the session. Even if receivers should be prepared to decode any valid packet composition, it eases interoperability when transmitters behave consistently. RFC 2198 requires that the redundant format must carry at least the primary and one redundant level. RFC 4102 requires that if different compositions of the payloads in the packet is to be used, then each combination needs to be assigned its own payload type number. Assuming that that includes use of varying levels of redundancy with the same payload in the redundant data, these requirements lead to the recommendation to use the approach documented in the corrected text. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC4103 (draft-ietf-avt-rfc2793bis-09) -------------------------------------- Title : RTP Payload for Text Conversation Publication Date : June 2005 Author(s) : G. Hellstrom, P. Jones Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Audio/Video Transport Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [AVTCORE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4103 (50… RFC Errata System