Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Noted, but it is not possible to delete lines from an RFC, we can make a 
public Errata statement if the protocol has a significant error or there 
is an ambiguity that will lead to implementation error, etc. Or we can 
make a note in the document database, that will be used when a new RFC 
is issued to replace this one. I suggested the latter.

Gorry


Allison, Art wrote:
> The definition using the undefined term is "TS: Transport Stream
> [ISO-MPEG2]."   A method of 
> transmission at the MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer 2
> of 
> the ISO/OSI reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS
> Multiplex."
> 
> Fixing this error by defining the term "TS logical channel' is indeed
> difficult, but as it was only introduces as one of two 'see also'
> references, fixing the definition by deletion seems appropriate as the
> 'see also' only misleads. 
> So, I suggest the last sentence be changed to read "See also TS
> Multiplex."
> 
> This would remove the reference to an undefined term, and thereby
> resolve the documentation issue.
> 
> Art
> Art Allison
> 
> Senior Director Advanced Engineering, Science and Technology
>  
> National Association of Broadcasters
> 1771 N Street NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone  [phone] 
> Fax  [phone]
> www.nab.org
> 
> Advocacy  Education  Innovation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: [e-mail] 
> |[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst
> |Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:46 AM
> |To: [e-mail]
> |Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> |Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |
> |After looking at this reported Errata, I suggest there does 
> |seems to be a valid issue to note. My thoughts are that the 
> |term 'TS logical channel' has been used to describe a 
> |component of the TS multiplex, carried as an elementary stream 
> |(ES) over a MPEG-2 TS. This term was used to differentiate it 
> |from the term "stream" which is widely used in other IETF 
> |specs to describe something different. It is not a peer of 'TS 
> |multiplex'.
> |
> |Given the term is already defined in other RFCs that are 
> |cited, I suggest this is not likely to result in 
> |implementation errors in future protocols.  I suggest the WG 
> |categorise this as "Hold for Document Update" - i.e. a future 
> |update of the document should consider this erratum when 
> |making the update.
> |
> |If anyone would like to add further comments, please send them 
> |to the list by 5th May 2009. After this date we will inform 
> |the RFC-Ed of a decision.
> |
> |Best wishes,
> |
> |Gorry Fairhurst
> |IPDVB Chair
> |
> |Allison, Art wrote:
> |> It is simply dead wrong to use TS logical channel in relation to 
> |> defining a Transport Stream.
> |> The errata should delete the term TS logical  channel, not define it 
> |> as it only misleads and propagates misunderstanding.
> |> 
> |> The term 'TS logical channel'  is not a peer of 'TS 
> |multiplex', it is 
> |> a component of the TS multiplex.
> |> 
> |> A MPEG-2 Transport Stream is a multiplex consisting of a 
> |collection of 
> |> elementary streams in 188-byte packets each stream having a Packet 
> |> IDentifier (PID).
> |> 
> |> I attempted to inform authors of RFC4326 of the poor construction at 
> |> the time, but the inventors of the term had more time and 
> |used it very 
> |> very narrowly so it was no longer dead wrong use, at which point my 
> |> budget to support this work was exhausted.
> |>  
> |> I do have time to educate and advocate better resolution of this 
> |> errata; but for accurate usage of PID and transport stream 
> |see ISO/ITU 
> |> 13818-1, not later attempts to 'clarify' those terms by those not 
> |> expert in
> |> MPEG-2 Systems. 
> |> 
> |> Art
> |> Art Allison
> |> 
> |> Director Advanced Engineering, Science and Technology
> |>  
> |> National Association of Broadcasters
> |> 1771 N Street NW
> |> Washington, DC 20036
> |> Phone  [phone]
> |> Fax  [phone]
> |> www.nab.org
> |> 
> |> Advocacy  Education  Innovation
> |> 
> |> 
> |>   
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> |-----Original Message-----
> |> |From: [e-mail]
> |> |[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> |> |[e-mail]
> |> |Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:47 AM
> |> |To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> |> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> |> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> |> |Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> |> |Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |> |
> |> |
> |> | Hi again,
> |> |
> |> |I suggest to add the the TS Logical Channel definition (taken from 
> |> |RFC 4326). So here is the proposed text:
> |> |
> |> |*********************************************
> |> |
> |> |TS Logical Channel: Transport Stream Logical Channel. In this 
> |> |document, this term identifies a channel at the MPEG-2 level 
> |> |[ISO-MPEG2]. It exists at level 2 of the ISO/OSI reference 
> |model. All 
> |> |packets sent over a TS Logical Channel carry the same PID 
> |value (this 
> |> |value is unique within a specific TS Multiplex). The term 
> |"Stream" is 
> |> |defined in MPEG-2 [ISO-MPEG2] to describe the content carried by a 
> |> |specific TS Logical Channel (see ULE Stream). Some PID values are 
> |> |reserved (by
> |> |MPEG-2) for specific signalling. Other standards (e.g., ATSC,
> |> |DVB) also reserve specific PID values.
> |> |
> |> |**********************************************
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |----
> |> |Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank
> |> |Lecturer
> |> |Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research
> |> |(CCSR) BA Building, Room E11 School of Electronics, Computing and 
> |> |Mathematics University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, GU2 7XH
> |> | 
> |> |Tel: [phone] (indirect 689844)
> |> |Fax: [phone]
> |> |e-mail: [e-mail]
> |> |http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/H.Cruickshank/
> |> |
> |> |-----Original Message-----
> |> |From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
> |> |Sent: 30 March 2009 08:25
> |> |To: Cruickshank HS Dr (CCSR); [e-mail]; 
> |> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> |> |[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> |> |Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> |> |Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5458, 
> |"Security
> |> |Requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE)
> |> |Protocol".
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |You may review the report below and at:
> |> |http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5458&eid=1746
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |Type: Technical
> |> |Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <[e-mail]>
> |> |
> |> |Section: 2
> |> |
> |> |Original Text
> |> |-------------
> |> |[[ at the bottom of page 5 / top of page 6 ]]
> |> |
> |> |   TS: Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2].  A method of 
> |transmission at the
> |> |   MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer 2 of 
> |the ISO/OSI
> |> |   reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS Multiplex.
> |> |                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> |
> |> |<< page break >>
> |> |
> |> |   TS Multiplex: In this document, ...
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |Corrected Text
> |> |--------------
> |> |   TS: Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2].  A method of 
> |transmission at the
> |> |   MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer 2 of 
> |the ISO/OSI
> |> |   reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS Multiplex.
> |> ||
> |> ||  TS Logical Channel: ...   << to be filled in >>
> |> ||  ...
> |> |
> |> |   TS Multiplex: In this document, ...
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |Notes
> |> |-----
> |> |The quoted keyword explanation for "TS Logical Channel" 
> |> |is missing in Section 2.
> |> |
> |> |Authors/Verifiers:
> |> |  Please restore the entry and fill in the missing Corrected Text.
> |> |
> |> |Instructions:
> |> |-------------
> |> |This errata 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 (IESG) can log in to 
> |> |change the
> |> |status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |RFC5458 (draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-09)
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |Title               : Security Requirements for the Unidirectional
> |> |Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) Protocol
> |> |Publication Date    : March 2009
> |> |Author(s)           : H. Cruickshank, P. Pillai, M. Noisternig, S.
> |> |Iyengar
> |> |Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> |> |Source              : IP over DVB
> |> |Area                : Internet
> |> |Stream              : IETF
> |> |Verifying Party     : IESG
> |> |
> |> |
> |> 
> |> 
> |
> |
> |
> 
>