RFC Errata
Found 8 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (7)
RFC 5109, "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", December 2007
Source of RFC: avt (rai)
Errata ID: 1225
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 1 says:
In the 2nd Paragraph
... signaled by different MIMEs from those of RFC 3009, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It should say:
... signaled as a media type different from those of RFC 3009, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Errata ID: 1227
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 9.2 says:
In Step 7,
7. The total length of the recovered media packet is recovered
from the recovery operation at protection level 0 of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
recovered media packet. This information can be used to check
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if the complete recovery operation (of all levels) has
recovered the packet to its full length.
It should say:
7. The total length of the recovered media packet is recovered
during the reconstruction of the RTP header (Step 13 in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Section 9.1). This information can be used to check
^^^^^^^^^^^^
if the complete recovery operation (of all levels) has
recovered the packet to its full length.
Errata ID: 1228
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 10.3 says:
In Figure 18, +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 6 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 12 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Errata ID: 1229
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 10.3 says:
In Figure 21, +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 6 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 12 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Errata ID: 1230
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 10.3 says:
In Figure 21, +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 6 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Redundant Encoding Block Header (RED) - 4 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FEC Packet Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Primary Encoding Block Header (RED) - 1 octet | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Media Packet Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RTP Header (RED) - 12 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Redundant Encoding Block Header (RED) - 4 octets | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Primary Encoding Block Header (RED) - 1 octet | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FEC Packet Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Media Packet Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
- The RTP Header should be 12 octets instead of 6 octets.
- The Primary Encoding Block Header (RED) should appear before the FEC Packet Data.
Errata ID: 3460
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2013-01-16
Held for Document Update by: Gonzalo Camarillo
Section 10.2 says:
In Figure 12,
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0 0 0 0|0|0 0 1 1 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
....
P rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
X rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
CC rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
M rec.: 0 [1 XOR 0 XOR 1 XOR 0]
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0 0 0 0|1|0 0 1 1 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
....
P rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
X rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
CC rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
M rec.: 1 [1 XOR 0]
Notes:
These fields (P rec., X rec., CC rec., and M rec.) should be calculated from the packets that are protected at Level 0 (as specified). The specification text in previous sections are all correct. This change here is only a typo in the examples, but correcting it helps to understand the specification.
Errata ID: 3461
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2013-01-16
Held for Document Update by: Gonzalo Camarillo
Section 10.2 says:
In Figure 15,
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0 0 0 0|0|0 0 1 1 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
....
P rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
X rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
CC rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0 XOR 0 XOR 0]
M rec.: 0 [1 XOR 0 XOR 1 XOR 0]
It should say:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0 0 0 0|1|0 0 1 1 0 0 1|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
....
P rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
X rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
CC rec.: 0 [0 XOR 0]
M rec.: 1 [1 XOR 0]
Notes:
These fields (P rec., X rec., CC rec., and M rec.) should be calculated from the packets that are protected at Level 0 (as specified). The specification text in previous sections are all correct. This change here is only a typo in the examples, but correcting it helps to understand the specification.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 5109, "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction", December 2007
Source of RFC: avt (rai)
Errata ID: 1226
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Adam Li
Date Reported: 2008-01-03
Rejected by: Robert Sparks
Date Rejected: 2010-10-28
Section 9.1 says:
In Step 13,
13. Take the next 16 bits of the recovery bit string. Whatever
unsigned integer this represents (assuming network-order),
take that many bytes from the recovery bit string and append
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
them to the new packet. This represents the CSRC list,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
extension, payload, and the padding of the RTP payload.
It should say:
13. Take the next 16 bits of the recovery bit string. Whatever
unsigned integer this represents (assuming network-order),
it represents the cumulative length of the CSRC list,
^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
extension, payload, and the padding of the RTP payload
of the packet to be recovered.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Notes:
--VERIFIER NOTES--
From Peter Musgrave's review:
Editorial: rephrases a step in the instructions for RTP header reconstruction
Action: Rejected (In my opinion the new text is not significantly clearer and the use of the word cumulative is a bit confusing).