RFC Errata
Found 5 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (5)
RFC 5117, "RTP Topologies", January 2008
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7667
Source of RFC: avt (rai)
Errata ID: 1312
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Cullen Jennings
Section 3.3, 5th par says:
Stand-alone Media Translators are rare. Most commonly, a combination | of Transport and Media Translators are used to translate both the media stream and the transport aspects of a stream between two transport domains (or clouds).
It should say:
Stand-alone Media Translators are rare. Most commonly, a combination | of Transport and Media Translators is used to translate both the media stream and the transport aspects of a stream between two transport domains (or clouds).
Notes:
"A combination ... *is* used ..." !
Errata ID: 1313
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Cullen Jennings
Section 3.3,pg.7 says:
[...]. Therefore, if the Receiver Reports were forwarded without changes, the extended highest sequence number would indicate that B were substantially behind in reception, while it most | likely it would not be. [...] ^^^^
It should say:
[...]. Therefore, if the Receiver Reports were forwarded without changes, the extended highest sequence number would indicate that B were substantially behind in reception, while it most | likely would not be. [...] ^
Notes:
Spurious word replication; location is 4th-to-last line on page 7.
Errata ID: 1314
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Cullen Jennings
Section 3.4, pg.9 says:
[...]. The CSRC Count (CC) and CSRC fields in the RTP header | are used to indicate the contributors of to the newly generated stream. The SSRCs of the to-be-mixed streams on the Mixer input appear as the CSRCs at the Mixer output. That output stream uses a | unique SSRC that identifies the Mixer's stream. The CSRC are forwarded between the two domains to allow for loop detection and identification of sources that are part of the global session. [...]
It should say:
[...]. The CSRC Count (CC) and CSRC fields in the RTP header | are used to indicate the contributors to the newly generated stream. The SSRCs of the to-be-mixed streams on the Mixer input appear as the CSRCs at the Mixer output. That output stream uses a | unique SSRC that identifies the Mixer's stream. The CSRCs are forwarded between the two domains to allow for loop detection and identification of sources that are part of the global session. [...]
Notes:
Near the bottom of page 9:
a) s/of to/to/
^^^
b) s/The CSRC are/The CSRCs are/
^
Errata ID: 1315
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Cullen Jennings
Section 3.4, pg.10 says:
A Mixer is responsible for receiving RTCP feedback messages and handling them appropriately. The definition of "appropriate" depends on the message itself and the context. In some cases, the reception of a codec-control message may result in the generation and transmission of RTCP feedback messages by the Mixer to the | participants in the other domain. In other cases, a message is handled by the Mixer itself and therefore not forwarded to any other domain.
It should say:
A Mixer is responsible for receiving RTCP feedback messages and handling them appropriately. The definition of "appropriate" depends on the message itself and the context. In some cases, the reception of a codec-control message may result in the generation and transmission of RTCP feedback messages by the Mixer to the | participants in the other domain(s). In other cases, a message is handled by the Mixer itself and therefore not forwarded to any other domain.
Notes:
Location is 4th paragraph on page 10.
Rationale: There may be more than one "other" domain;
in particular, this *is* the case in the example discussed
in the text (cf. Figure 5 on page 9).
Errata ID: 1316
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Cullen Jennings
Section 4.1.5, p.16 says:
... handled correctly in domain bridging function. [...]
It should say:
Either: ... handled correctly in domain bridging functions. [...] Or (less preferable): ... handled correctly in a domain bridging function. [...]