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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the review. I have commited changes to these editorial errors.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

From: avt <[e-mail]> on behalf of hyunsikYang <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 19:42
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
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=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, 14 April 2024 at 17:43
To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt