RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6184, "RTP Payload Format for H.264 Video", May 2011

Source of RFC: avt (rai)

Errata ID: 4714
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Iñaki Baz Castillo
Date Reported: 2016-06-17
Rejected by: Ben Campbell
Date Rejected: 2016-06-21

Section 8.2.2 says:

To simplify the handling and matching of these configurations, the
same RTP payload type number used in the offer SHOULD also be used
in the answer, as specified in [8]

[8] points to RFC 3264 "An Offer/Answer Model with the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)"

Notes:

The above statement is wrong. RFC 3264 does not mandate the same payload
type in both the offer and the answer. In fact, RFC 3264 section 5.1 states:

For sendonly RTP streams, the payload type
numbers indicate the value of the payload type field in RTP packets
the offerer is planning to send for that codec. For sendrecv RTP
streams, the payload type numbers indicate the value of the payload
type field the offerer expects to receive, and would prefer to send.

However, for sendonly and sendrecv streams, the answer might indicate
different payload type numbers for the same codecs, in which case,
the offerer MUST send with the payload type numbers from the answer.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Rejected based on discussion on avtcore and payload lists. (3264 does in fact include the SHOULD).

Report New Errata