[AVTCORE] Re: Errata on RFC 8888 - number of reports

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! I somehow missed it when looking for responses.

I see that the RFC Editor still says the errata is in "reported" state, 
I'm looking for where I can poke to get it to be "verified".

Harald

On 12/19/24 16:02, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> I responded to your previous mail but it was from an address with busted 
> DMARC, so you may not have seen it.  Here’s what I said:
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> *From: *Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: **[AVTCORE] Re: Errata on RFC 8888 - number of reports*
> *Date: *November 19, 2024 at 2:33:08 PM EST
> *To: *IETF AVTCore WG <[e-mail]>
> 
> The suggested fix in the errata report looks like the correct fix to me.
> I'm 99% sure that's the way I implemented it when I was doing it in the
> Hackathon, too (sadly, in closed source at my previous employer).
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2024, at 5:49 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm missing any response to this errata - it's kind of important since 
>> we're in the middle of coding this support, and we have verified that 
>> the disagreement over what it should say has led to interop issues.
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>> Harald
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/24 13:29, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> This was discovered during interop testing at IETF 121, but hasn't 
>>> hit the list yet as far as I can see.
>>> Report:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8166
>>> Basically, there are two ways to interpret how many packets to report 
>>> on in a feedback message, and Netflix and Chrome had chosen 
>>> incompatible interpreations.
>>> Can we settle this one way or the other?
>>> Harald
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>