[MMUSIC] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5939 (5042)

[RFC Errata System]

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5939,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5042

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Typo in example <***@iii.ca>

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP 98

Corrected Text
--------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVP 98

Notes
-----
The example missed an S in the mine type. The list of allowed types is at https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml#sdp-parameters-2 and UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP is not a registered device. Because this is over TLS, it is a SRTP (not RTP) and should use SAVP not AVP.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC5939 (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-13)
--------------------------------------
Title : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation
Publication Date : September 2010
Author(s) : F. Andreasen
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Multiparty Multimedia Session Control RAI
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[Ben Campbell]

Hi,

This seems correct to me on a quick scan, modulo the work around opportunistic srtp, which shouldn’t affect the erratum at this point. Thoughts?

Thanks!

Ben.

Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5939 (5042)
Date: June 16, 2017 at 11:05:54 AM CDT
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5939,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation".
--------------------------------------
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5042
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Section: 4.2
Original Text
-------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP 98
Corrected Text
--------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVP 98
Notes
-----
The example missed an S in the mine type. The list of allowed types is at https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml#sdp-parameters-2 and UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP is not a registered device. Because this is over TLS, it is a SRTP (not RTP) and should use SAVP not AVP.
-------------
This erratum 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
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC5939 (draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-capability-negotiation-13)
--------------------------------------
Title : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation
Publication Date : September 2010
Author(s) : F. Andreasen
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Multiparty Multimedia Session Control RAI
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[Cullen Jennings]

Post by RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5939,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Capability Negotiation".
--------------------------------------
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5042
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Section: 4.2
Original Text
-------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP 98
Corrected Text
--------------
m=audio 59000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVP 98
Notes
-----
The example missed an S in the mine type. The list of allowed types is at https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml#sdp-parameters-2 and UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP is not a registered device. Because this is over TLS, it is a SRTP (not RTP) and should use SAVP not AVP.

I have no idea how I cut and paste in mine type there. I should have put "proto" not "mine type". Sorry