RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)

[<H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk>]

 I agree with Gorry's suggestion.
Haitham


----
Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank 
Lecturer 
Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research (CCSR)
BA Building, Room E11 
School of Electronics, Computing and Mathematics
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, GU2 7XH 
 
Tel: +44 1483 686007 (indirect 689844) 
Fax: +44 1483 686011 
e-mail: H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk 
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/H.Cruickshank/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk [mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On
Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: 29 April 2009 15:50
To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)

Noted, but it is not possible to delete lines from an RFC, we can make a
public Errata statement if the protocol has a significant error or there
is an ambiguity that will lead to implementation error, etc. Or we can
make a note in the document database, that will be used when a new RFC
is issued to replace this one. I suggested the latter.

Gorry


Allison, Art wrote:
> The definition using the undefined term is "TS: Transport Stream
> [ISO-MPEG2]."   A method of 
> transmission at the MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer

> 2 of the ISO/OSI reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS 
> Multiplex."
> 
> Fixing this error by defining the term "TS logical channel' is indeed 
> difficult, but as it was only introduces as one of two 'see also'
> references, fixing the definition by deletion seems appropriate as the

> 'see also' only misleads.
> So, I suggest the last sentence be changed to read "See also TS 
> Multiplex."
> 
> This would remove the reference to an undefined term, and thereby 
> resolve the documentation issue.
> 
> Art
> Art Allison
> 
> Senior Director Advanced Engineering, Science and Technology
>  
> National Association of Broadcasters
> 1771 N Street NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone  202 429 5418
> Fax  202 775 4981
> www.nab.org
> 
> Advocacy  Education  Innovation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |[mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Gorry Fairhurst
> |Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:46 AM
> |To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; p.pillai@Bradford.ac.uk; 
> |mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at; sunil.iyengar@logica.com; rdroms@cisco.com; 
> |jari.arkko@piuha.net; ah@TR-Sys.de
> |Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |
> |After looking at this reported Errata, I suggest there does seems to 
> |be a valid issue to note. My thoughts are that the term 'TS logical 
> |channel' has been used to describe a component of the TS multiplex, 
> |carried as an elementary stream
> |(ES) over a MPEG-2 TS. This term was used to differentiate it from 
> |the term "stream" which is widely used in other IETF specs to 
> |describe something different. It is not a peer of 'TS multiplex'.
> |
> |Given the term is already defined in other RFCs that are cited, I 
> |suggest this is not likely to result in implementation errors in 
> |future protocols.  I suggest the WG categorise this as "Hold for 
> |Document Update" - i.e. a future update of the document should 
> |consider this erratum when making the update.
> |
> |If anyone would like to add further comments, please send them to the

> |list by 5th May 2009. After this date we will inform the RFC-Ed of a 
> |decision.
> |
> |Best wishes,
> |
> |Gorry Fairhurst
> |IPDVB Chair
> |
> |Allison, Art wrote:
> |> It is simply dead wrong to use TS logical channel in relation to 
> |> defining a Transport Stream.
> |> The errata should delete the term TS logical  channel, not define 
> |> it as it only misleads and propagates misunderstanding.
> |> 
> |> The term 'TS logical channel'  is not a peer of 'TS
> |multiplex', it is
> |> a component of the TS multiplex.
> |> 
> |> A MPEG-2 Transport Stream is a multiplex consisting of a
> |collection of
> |> elementary streams in 188-byte packets each stream having a Packet 
> |> IDentifier (PID).
> |> 
> |> I attempted to inform authors of RFC4326 of the poor construction 
> |> at the time, but the inventors of the term had more time and
> |used it very
> |> very narrowly so it was no longer dead wrong use, at which point my

> |> budget to support this work was exhausted.
> |>  
> |> I do have time to educate and advocate better resolution of this 
> |> errata; but for accurate usage of PID and transport stream
> |see ISO/ITU
> |> 13818-1, not later attempts to 'clarify' those terms by those not 
> |> expert in
> |> MPEG-2 Systems. 
> |> 
> |> Art
> |> Art Allison
> |> 
> |> Director Advanced Engineering, Science and Technology
> |>  
> |> National Association of Broadcasters
> |> 1771 N Street NW
> |> Washington, DC 20036
> |> Phone  202 429 5418
> |> Fax  202 775 4981
> |> www.nab.org
> |> 
> |> Advocacy  Education  Innovation
> |> 
> |> 
> |>   
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> |-----Original Message-----
> |> |From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |> |[mailto:owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk] On Behalf Of 
> |> |H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk
> |> |Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:47 AM
> |> |To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; p.pillai@Bradford.ac.uk; 
> |> |mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at; sunil.iyengar@logica.com; rdroms@cisco.com;

> |> |jari.arkko@piuha.net; townsley@cisco.com; gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |> |Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de; ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |> |Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |> |
> |> |
> |> | Hi again,
> |> |
> |> |I suggest to add the the TS Logical Channel definition (taken from

> |> |RFC 4326). So here is the proposed text:
> |> |
> |> |*********************************************
> |> |
> |> |TS Logical Channel: Transport Stream Logical Channel. In this 
> |> |document, this term identifies a channel at the MPEG-2 level 
> |> |[ISO-MPEG2]. It exists at level 2 of the ISO/OSI reference
> |model. All
> |> |packets sent over a TS Logical Channel carry the same PID
> |value (this
> |> |value is unique within a specific TS Multiplex). The term
> |"Stream" is
> |> |defined in MPEG-2 [ISO-MPEG2] to describe the content carried by a

> |> |specific TS Logical Channel (see ULE Stream). Some PID values are 
> |> |reserved (by
> |> |MPEG-2) for specific signalling. Other standards (e.g., ATSC,
> |> |DVB) also reserve specific PID values.
> |> |
> |> |**********************************************
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |----
> |> |Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank
> |> |Lecturer
> |> |Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research
> |> |(CCSR) BA Building, Room E11 School of Electronics, Computing and 
> |> |Mathematics University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, GU2 7XH
> |> | 
> |> |Tel: +44 1483 686007 (indirect 689844)
> |> |Fax: +44 1483 686011
> |> |e-mail: H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk 
> |> |http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/H.Cruickshank/
> |> |
> |> |-----Original Message-----
> |> |From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
> |> |Sent: 30 March 2009 08:25
> |> |To: Cruickshank HS Dr (CCSR); p.pillai@bradford.ac.uk; 
> |> |mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at; sunil.iyengar@logica.com; rdroms@cisco.com;

> |> |jari.arkko@piuha.net; townsley@cisco.com; gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> |> |Cc: ah@TR-Sys.de; ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> |> |Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5458 (1746)
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5458,
> |"Security
> |> |Requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation 
> |> |(ULE) Protocol".
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |You may review the report below and at:
> |> |http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5458&eid=1746
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |Type: Technical
> |> |Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
> |> |
> |> |Section: 2
> |> |
> |> |Original Text
> |> |-------------
> |> |[[ at the bottom of page 5 / top of page 6 ]]
> |> |
> |> |   TS: Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2].  A method of
> |transmission at the
> |> |   MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer 2 of
> |the ISO/OSI
> |> |   reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS Multiplex.
> |> |                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> |
> |> |<< page break >>
> |> |
> |> |   TS Multiplex: In this document, ...
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |Corrected Text
> |> |--------------
> |> |   TS: Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2].  A method of
> |transmission at the
> |> |   MPEG-2 layer using TS Packets; it represents Layer 2 of
> |the ISO/OSI
> |> |   reference model.  See also TS Logical Channel and TS Multiplex.
> |> ||
> |> ||  TS Logical Channel: ...   << to be filled in >>
> |> ||  ...
> |> |
> |> |   TS Multiplex: In this document, ...
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |
> |> |Notes
> |> |-----
> |> |The quoted keyword explanation for "TS Logical Channel" 
> |> |is missing in Section 2.
> |> |
> |> |Authors/Verifiers:
> |> |  Please restore the entry and fill in the missing Corrected Text.
> |> |
> |> |Instructions:
> |> |-------------
> |> |This errata 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 (IESG) can log in 
> |> |to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> |> |
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |RFC5458 (draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-09)
> |> |--------------------------------------
> |> |Title               : Security Requirements for the Unidirectional
> |> |Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) Protocol
> |> |Publication Date    : March 2009
> |> |Author(s)           : H. Cruickshank, P. Pillai, M. Noisternig, S.
> |> |Iyengar
> |> |Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> |> |Source              : IP over DVB
> |> |Area                : Internet
> |> |Stream              : IETF
> |> |Verifying Party     : IESG
> |> |
> |> |
> |> 
> |> 
> |
> |
> |
> 
>