[AVTCORE] Re: AD review : draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please see below. If you are not happy with the answer lets schedule an call to try to resolve this so that we don’t spend too much time on it.

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 17 September 2024 at 14:38
To: Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Re: AD review : draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry


On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:02 PM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Magnus said:

"I think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA registration rule changes."

[BA] Yes.  In particular, the IANA rule changes will affect the IANA considerations section of future standards track documents.

How is that? We closing an registry and updating the instructions, how is that going to affect future PS? I am trying to understand.

MW: So I assume what Bernard meant here is the praxis (encoded in RFC 8088) to in all RTP Payload format specification (including the standards track) to register the RTP Payload format, and this document changes what we are expected to do. Thus, affecting what is written in future standards track documents.

So the arguments for making this PS is that having scrutinized this change on PS level ensures that we have established sufficient consensus to make this change and close this registry which was created in relation to an standards track RFC 4855.

If IANA and the IESG is okay to take this document through despite it is unclearness in how the registry came into existence as Informational then I fine with this. I think you simple have to ask yourselves what will cause least problem here. It appears that both I as author and the WG chairs think PS would cause the least amount of future issue with this document. If you as AD have indication that this would not be the case then change the intended status.

I don’t think you will get much clearer answer, at least my choice is based on the unclarity in how the registry came into existence and by ensuring this have been reviewed as a standards action it can’t be questioned after its approval.

/Magnus