RFC 3533 Errata - Revision history

Silvia: added two new errata

2008-02-26T00:12:50Z

added two new errata

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 26 February 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''Title'''		'''Title'''

-	It should be simply "The Ogg Encapsulation Format". The last bit certainly doesn't build trust on Ogg.	+	It should be simply "The Ogg Encapsulation Format". The last bit certainly doesn't build trust on Ogg. [I disagree; Silvia]

	'''Category'''		'''Category'''

-	It should NOT be Informational but Standards Track. [This is not possible because it is not a standard developed by the IETF. It will only go on Standards Track if it comes out of an IETF working group.]	+	It should NOT be Informational but Standards Track. [This is not possible because it is not a standard developed by the IETF. It will only go on Standards Track if it comes out of an IETF working group.; Silvia]

	'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''		'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''
Line 16:		Line 16:
	per logical bitstream." should read "It also uses two additional header packets		per logical bitstream." should read "It also uses two additional header packets
	per logical bitstream.		per logical bitstream.
		+
		+	'''non-decreasing granulepos'''
		+
		+	The RFC needs to specify non-decreasing granulepos - see discussion at https://trac.xiph.org/ticket/1306.
		+
		+	'''incomplete packets on the e_o_s page of a logical bitstream'''
		+
		+	The RFC needs to clarify that incomplete packets on the e_o_s page of a logical bitstream are undesired and will be ignored - see discussion at https://trac.xiph.org/ticket/1308.

	== Additions ==		== Additions ==

Silvia: comment on "Standards Track"

2008-02-26T00:07:42Z

comment on "Standards Track"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 26 February 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	'''Category'''		'''Category'''

-	It should NOT be Informational but Standards Track.	+	It should NOT be Informational but Standards Track. [This is not possible because it is not a standard developed by the IETF. It will only go on Standards Track if it comes out of an IETF working group.]

	'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''		'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''

Saoshyant: cat

2008-02-15T16:41:38Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 15 February 2008
Line 24:		Line 24:

	* how to deal with large pagerate differentials?		* how to deal with large pagerate differentials?
		+
		+	[[Category:Ogg]]

Saoshyant at 07:17, 26 January 2008

2008-01-26T07:17:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:17, 26 January 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Errata ==		== Errata ==
		+
		+	'''Title'''
		+
		+	It should be simply "The Ogg Encapsulation Format". The last bit certainly doesn't build trust on Ogg.
		+
		+	'''Category'''
		+
		+	It should NOT be Informational but Standards Track.

	'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''		'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''

Rillian: Create an errata page for the Ogg RFC

2007-03-15T17:58:56Z

Create an errata page for the Ogg RFC

New page

This is the official errata page for RFC 3533 "The Ogg Encapsulation Format Version 0".

== Errata ==

'''Section 4, paragraph 4'''

The sentence "It also uses two additional header pages
per logical bitstream." should read "It also uses two additional header packets
per logical bitstream.

== Additions ==

Ideas for new stuff in 3533bis:

* the multiplexing should be rewritten, in particular to give a seek algorithm

* how to deal with large pagerate differentials?