Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 12 September 2013 18:07 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8855D21E81E9 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qm9uX0LjxUnh for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5519111E814D for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8CI4a7O003751; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:04:38 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r8CI4Z9b1016912; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:04:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r8CI4ZQW1010065; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:04:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:04:35 -0400
Message-Id: <201309121804.r8CI4ZQW1010065@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com> (ron.even.tlv@gmail.com)
References: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com> <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com>
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:07:35 -0000
> From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> > > We started working in it see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01 > Please review I wasn't on the mailing list when that came out! It looks like it does what is needed. I have the following comments on draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01: 1. As others have said, the WG can simply instruct IANA to update the assignment table, but since we want to prescribe the order of allocation of dynamic PTs, and that requires an RFC, we might as well put the table update in the same RFC. 2. Given the complexity of the considerations surrounding PTs 64 and 65, there should be a section that explains all of the history and considerations. 3. In section 3, the sequence in which payload types should be allocated is given all in one dense paragraph. It would probably be clearer if the allocation order was broken out as an explicit list. If I just separate the sentences that are now in the draft, there are *five* groups to be used in order: Applications SHOULD first use values in the range for dynamic payload types [96-127]. Those applications which need to define more than 32 dynamic payload types MAY bind codes below 96, in which case it is RECOMMENDED that unassigned payload type numbers [35-63] followed by ... ... [20-24], 27, [29-30]. If more payload type numbers are needed, the application may use the reserved values 1,2,19 (see [RFC3551]for reserved values) and 64, 65 (see [RFC5761]for reserved value). If more Payload type numbers are needed, then applications may override the static types[0, 3-18,25,26,28] map encodings to these defined static payload type but this may cause problems for applications that may assume a specific payload format based on the Payload Type ignoring the mapping in the signaling. Dale
- [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to r… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)