RFC Errata
Found 7 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 5760, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback", February 2010
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6128
Source of RFC: avt (rai)
Errata ID: 2114
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: ALfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Verifier Name: Robert Sparks
Date Verified: 2010-09-16
Section 10.1, pg.40 says:
| rtcp-unicast:rsi *(SP <processing>:<rtcp-type>])
This attribute MUST be used to indicate the "Distribution Source
| Feedback Summary" model of operation. In this model, a list or
parameters may be used to explicitly specify how RTCP packets
originated by receivers are handled. Options for processing a
given RTCP packet type are:
aggr: The Distribution Source has means for aggregating the
contents of the RTCP packets and will do so.
| forward: The Distribution Source will forward the RTCP packet
unchanged.
| term: The Distribution Source will terminate the RTCP packet.
It should say:
| rtcp-unicast:rsi *(SP <processing>:<rtcp-type>)
This attribute MUST be used to indicate the "Distribution Source
| Feedback Summary" model of operation. In this model, a list of
parameters may be used to explicitly specify how RTCP packets
originated by receivers are handled. Options for processing a
given RTCP packet type are:
aggr: The Distribution Source has means for aggregating the
contents of the RTCP packets and will do so.
| forward: The Distribution Source will forward the RTCP packets
unchanged.
| term: The Distribution Source will terminate the RTCP packets.
Notes:
Rationale:
a) (Technical): unmatched "]" in syntax rule;
b) (Editorials): s/or/of/ , and use plural: s/packet/packets/
Status: Held for Document Update (6)
RFC 5760, "RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast Sessions with Unicast Feedback", February 2010
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6128
Source of RFC: avt (rai)
Errata ID: 2111
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: ALfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 7.4, pg.34 says:
[[ first paragraph on page 34: ]] | The RTP receiver MUST process the report blocks contained in any RTP SR and RR packets to complete its view of the RTP session.
It should say:
| The RTP receiver MUST process the report blocks contained in any RTCP SR and RR packets to complete its view of the RTP session.
Notes:
Rationale; distinction between RTP and RTCP is significant;
therefore classified as 'Technical'.
Errata ID: 2113
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: ALfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 9.4, pg.39 says:
[[ in the second paragraph of Section 9.4: ]] | [...] are in use, the Distribution MAY combine several incoming RTCP feedback packets and forward the aggregate along with its next RTCP RR/RSI packet. [...]
It should say:
| [...] are in use, the Distribution Source MAY combine several incoming RTCP feedback packets and forward the aggregate along with its next RTCP RR/RSI packet. [...]
Notes:
Rationale: Use of full defined term, "Distribution Source".
Errata ID: 2115
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section B.4, pg.63 says:
Constant value Due to the size of the multiplicative factor field being 4 bits, the | maximum multiplicative value is 15. | The distribution type field of this packet would be value 1 since it represents loss data.
It should say:
Constant value Due to the size of the multiplicative factor field being 4 bits, the | maximum multiplicative value is 2^15. | The sub-report block type field of this packet would be value 4 | since it represents a loss data histogram.
Notes:
Rationale:
Apparently evolution of SRBT design for the body of the RFC
have been missed in the Appendix.
Changes above serve to obtain consistent use of terms and
appropriate values.
For improved readability, related changes for pp. 64/65 are being
reported in distinct Errata notes.
Errata ID: 2116
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section B.4, pg.64 says:
The packet fields will contain the values:
| Header distribution Block
| Distribution Type: 1
Number of Data Buckets: 16
Multiplicative Factor: 9
Packet Length field: 5 (5 * 4 => 20 bytes)
| Minimum Data Value: 0
| Maximum Data Value: 39
| Data Bucket values: (each value is 16-bits)
It should say:
The packet fields will contain the values:
| RSI reoprt fixed header;
| -- Sub-report Block --
| Sub-Report Block Type: 4 (Loss distribution)
Number of Data Buckets: 16
Multiplicative Factor: 9
Packet Length field: 5 (5 * 4 => 20 bytes)
| Minimum Distribution Value: 0
| Maximum Distribution Value: 39
| Data Bucket values: (each value is 4 bits)
Notes:
Rationale: See preceding reort, eid=2115 !
Errata ID: 2117
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section B.4, pg.65 says:
The packet fields will contain the values:
| Header Distribution Block
| Distribution Type: 1
Number of Data Buckets: 40
Multiplicative Factor: 0
Packet Length field: 18 (18 * 4 => 72 bytes)
| Minimum Loss Value: 0
| Maximum Loss Value: 39
| Bucket values are the same as the initial data set.
| Result
| Selecting one of the three methods outlined above might be done by
a congestion parameter or by user preference. The overhead
associated with processing the packets is likely to differ very
little between the techniques. The savings in bandwidth are
| apparent, however, using 20, 52, and 72 octets respectively.
These values would vary more widely for a larger data set with
less correlation between results.
It should say:
The packet fields will contain the values:
| RSI report fixed header;
| -- Sub-report Block --
| Sub-Report Block Type: 4 (Loss distribution)
Number of Data Buckets: 40
Multiplicative Factor: 0
Packet Length field: 18 (18 * 4 => 72 bytes)
| Minimum Distribution Value: 0
| Maximum Distribution Value: 39
| Bucket values are the same as the initial data set, represented
| in 12 bits each.
| Result
| Selecting one of the two methods outlined above might be done by
a congestion parameter or by user preference. The overhead
associated with processing the packets is likely to differ very
little between the techniques. The savings in bandwidth are
| apparent, however, using 20 and 72 octets respectively.
These values would vary more widely for a larger data set with
less correlation between results.
Notes:
Rationale: See preceding reort, eid=2115 !
Also, there are only two examples le ft in the published appendix.
Errata ID: 2112
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: ALfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2010-04-05
Held for Document Update by: Robert Sparks
Section 9.1 - 9.3 says:
[[ In Section 9.1: ]] | If the Distribution Source is operating in Simple Feedback Model (which may be indicated [...] | If the Distribution Source is operating in Distribution Source Feedback Summary Model, the receiver MUST use [...]
It should say:
| If the Distribution Source is operating in the Simple Feedback Model (which may be indicated [...] | If the Distribution Source is operating in the Distribution Source Feedback Summary Model, the receiver MUST use [...]
Notes:
Rationale: missing articles.
Similar instances recur in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.
Further, the section headline of 9.3,
9.3. Media Senders RTCP Transmission
should perhaps better say:
9.3. Media Sender RTCP Transmission
or:
9.3. RTCP Transmission by Media Senders
[keep for update!]