Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt

Dear Magnus,

I reviewed your document and I agreed with you.

By the way, there is a minor typo. So please check below. I hope it will
help you.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Hyunsik Yang

1) Abstract

    It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats
often forget to register themselves in the IANA regsitry "RTP Payload
Formats Media Types". In practice this has no real impact.  One reason is
that the Media Types registry is the crucial regsistry to register any
Media Type to establish the media type used to identified the format in
various signalling(signaling?) usage.

To resolve this sitaution this document performs the following.

2) introduction

   It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats

   often forget to register themselves in the IANA regsitry "RTP Payload

   formats Media Types" [RTP-FORMATS].  In practice this has no real

   impact.  This registry is not used for any purpose other than to

   track which media types actually have RTP payload formats.  That

   purpose could be addressed through other means.

   The Media Types registry [MEDIA-TYPES] is the crucial regsistry to

   register any Media Type to establish the media type used to identify

   the format in various signalling usage, to avoid collisions, and to

   reference their specifications.

   To resolve this sitaution, this document performs the following

   actions.  First, it updates the registry to include known RTP payload

   formats at the time of writing.  Then, it closes the IANA Registry

   for RTP Payload Formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond

   instructing IANA to close this registry, the instructions to authors

   in [RFC8088] are updated so that registration in the closed registry

   is no longer required.

   It is unclear how the "RTP Payload formats Media Types" [RTP-FORMATS]

   registry came into existance.

*3) Update to How To Write an RTP Payload Format*

When that registration request is written, it shall

   also be requested that the media type is included under the "RTP

   Payload Format media types" subregistry of the RTP registry

   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters)."

4) Security Considerations

   This document has no security considerations as it defines an

   adminstrative rule change

2024년 4월 15일 (월) 오전 9:26, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>님이 작성:

> Hi Roni,
>
>
>
> I agree there are some uncertainty if the Media Type registy structure at
> IANA will be updated as we are relying on future actions.
>
>
>
> As you note independently if one start from RFC 8088, RFC 4588, or RFC
> 6838 if one has an RTP payload format one will arrive at sufficient
> instructions for the registration requirements for a framed type over RTP
> in the media type registry. One will however not do that for the RTP
> payload type registry in all those cases as only RFC 8088 really talks
> about this. .
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Magnus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ron Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 14 April 2024 at 17:43
> *To: *Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
> *Cc: *avt@ietf.org <avt@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for
> draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> I agree that it make sense to close the RTP Payload Type registry. The
> media type registry has in the notes the following sentence “additional
>  procedures for registering media types for transfer via RTP can be found
> in [RFC4855]” . This sentence still applies except for the registration in
> the RTP payload type registry, for example the need for SDP procedure. This
> is for the case when registering RTP payload not via the IETF.
>
> The comment is if the media type registry will be updated based on work in
> the Mediaman WG
>
> BR
>
> Roni Even
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 12:07 Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi AVTCORE,
>
>
>
> I have now submitted my very short draft that tries to clean up the
> situation around the RTP Payload Type registry. Please review and I think
> if people agree to this adminstrative action we should go on an adopt this
> as a WG item.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Magnus  Westerlund
>
>
>
>
>
> A new version of Internet-Draft
> draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt has been successfully
> submitted by Magnus Westerlund and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:     draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
> Revision: 00
> Title:    Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
> Date:     2024-04-02
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    5
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt
>
>  Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/
> HTML:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.html
>
> HTMLized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00
>
> Abstract:
>
>    It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats
>    often forget to register themselves in the IANA regsitry "RTP Payload
>    Formats Media Types".  In practice this has no real impact.  One
>    reason is that the Media Types registry is the crucial regsistry to
>    register any Media Type to establish the media type used to
>    identified the format in various signalling usage.
>
>    To resolve this sitaution this document performs the following.
>    First it updates the registry to include known RTP payload formats at
>    the time of writing.  Then it closes the IANA Registry for RTP
>    Payload formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond
>    instructing IANA to close this registry the instructions to authors
>    in RFC 8088 are updated that registration is no longer required in
>    the closed registry.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>