Re: [AVT] Inconsistent attribute name in RFC 3611

[Tom Taylor <tom.taylor at rogers.com>]

Maybe I'm being hasty, but the general opinion seems to be to go with rcvr-rtt.

David R Oran wrote:
> I just checked and the Cisco IPTV code uses rcvr-rtt.
>
> Just goes to show that for implementers they copy stuff from the 
> examples rather than the spec!
>
> So, we'd obviously prefer that the errata change the IANA registration 
> and the spec text rather than the example, but if given some time to 
> switch (it takes 2 release to make such a change since this is a 
> red/green style packet problem) we can deal with either.
>
> DaveO.
>
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: avt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces at ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > > Tom Taylor
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 7:16 PM
> > > > To: IETF AVT WG
> > > > Subject: [AVT] Inconsistent attribute name in RFC 3611
> > > >
> > > > RFC 3611 defines the attribute rcvr-rtt in the SDP section,
> > > but uses
> > > > recv-rtt in the text and the IANA Considerations section.
> > > Alan Clark
> > > > suggests that the SDP section should prevail, but it seems
> > > like a good
> > > > idea to check on what has been implemented first. Do people
> > > have views
> > > > one way or the other?
> > > >
> > > > Tom Taylor
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> > > > avt at ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt