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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 4/4/24 4:53 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> The intention is to lobby the work in Mediaman to when they anyway are 
> updating the registry structure to include a column that will say if the 
> type is usable with RTP. To make this more visible at a glance.
> 
> How important do you think it is to easily determine all media types 
> within a media type (audio or video, etc.) has an RTP payload format? 
>  From my perspective that is least prioritized reason for the registry.

Here I'm not too concerned with the "easily" part.

AFAIK there is no requirement that the document specifying a registered 
media type say anything about RTP. Just adding such a requirement would 
satisfy my concern. Adding a column to the registry would also be nice.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> In falling priority from my perspect the purposes of the media type 
> registry are the following:
> 
>  1. Prevent name space collisions
>  2. Be able to find the reference for a given media type, like audio/amr
>     for example
>  3. Find the RTP payload format for a specific codec HEVC for example.
>     Which if you guess the media type correctly (video/H265) is
>     possible. But you are better served by searching for HEVC in the
>     datatracker or in general using google to find propreitary ones.
>  4. Be able to find all RTP payload types for a media main type. This,
>     the media type registry is poorly served in its current form. As I
>     said I hope we will be able to fix that when MediaMan WG gets to
>     actually revise the registry.
> 
> History is clear that we have been unable to maintain this as a separate 
> registry. So an uncomplete registry is also not good if you think what 
> you will get is a complete listing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> *From: *avt <[e-mail]> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 2 April 2024 at 16:26
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for 
> draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt
> 
> Magnus,
> 
> I think I may be missing something:
> 
> Surely there are some media types that aren't suitable for use with RTP.
> (E.g., image/jpeg, application/calendar+json.) With this change, how can
> someone distinguish a media type that may be used with RTP from one that
> may not?
> 
>          Thanks,
>          Paul
> 
> On 4/2/24 5:07 AM, Magnus Westerlund 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 <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt <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/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/ <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 <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.html> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.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 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00 <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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>
>