Re: [AVTCORE] Errata 4192 RFC 3550

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Stephen's point is that you are proposing a protocol change. That cannot 
be done by way of an erratum. If you want to write an Internet Draft 
with your proposals, they can be debated. I wonder if you could use the 
XR capability to get the information you want?

Tom Taylor

On 10/12/2014 1:22 AM, Julius Friedman wrote:
> Dear Mr. Casner / Audio Video Working Group.
>
> Sincerely thank you for responding in a manner which clearly shows that you
> have taken the time to acknowledge my inquiry. I know my previous emails
> were hastily written and this one is probably not much better but I will
> endeavor to express my concerns and points and then in summary ask you
> respond at least once again.
>
> I would like to first start of by saying that if I did have functions which
> are not specified they would not be standard and hence not relevant for
> errata, the reason I wrote this errata is because I know that others have
> also had issues when reading that sentence (and multiple others in the Rtp
> RFC [3550]) and I would like to clarify if nothing else why I believe it is
> errata and why it can potentially be a security risk.
>...