Subject: [MEDIACTRL] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6505 (3659)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6505,
"A Mixer Control Package for the Media Control Channel Framework".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6505&eid=3659

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Joël Repiquet <[email-masked]>

Section: 4.2.2.4

Original Text
-------------
   id2:  an identifier for either a connection or a conference.  The
      identifier MUST conform to the syntax defined in Section 15.1 of
      [RFC6230].  The attribute is mandatory.

Corrected Text
--------------
   id2:  an identifier for either a connection or a conference.  The
      identifier MUST conform to the syntax defined in Appendix A.1 of
      [RFC6230].  The attribute is mandatory.

Notes
-----

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6505 (draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-14)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Mixer Control Package for the Media Control Channel Framework
Publication Date    : March 2012
Author(s)           : S. McGlashan, T. Melanchuk, C. Boulton
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Media Server Control
Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:44:55 -0400

Looks like a good editorial catch. Others?

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:03:47 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
> 

Given that the existing reference ("Section 15.1 of [RFC6230]") points
to the acknowledgments section of the RFC, it seems like a good idea
to correct it!

Dale