On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:57, Kristofer Sandlund wrote:
> I'd recommend setting the errata as "Verified", whoever has permission
> to edit that one.
Indeed. To corroborate (grepping for rtp_version):
rfc5225.txt:3570: rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 0) [ 2 ];
rfc5225.txt:4354: rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ];
rfc5225.txt:4391: rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ];
rfc5225.txt:5137: rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ];
rfc5225.txt:5173: rtp_version =:= uncompressed_value(2, 2) [ 2 ];
Very clearly, line 3570 is the odd one out here and needs to be fixed, as RTP Version 0 is neither defined nor in use.
rohc_team:
Thanks for finding this!
(If I still were rohc WG chair, I would ask you for your common name at this point, as it is customary to use wallet names on IETF lists.)
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc
