Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 EF43C21F9E77 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ladDtfRWrMoJ for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC5C21F9E76 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-3b-523008c71f57
Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CF.A4.16099.7C800325; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:08:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.20) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:08:07 +0200
Message-ID: <523008E0.7050209@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:08:32 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
References: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com> <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje4JDoMgg4WpFi97VrJb/G1ntnh5 osyB2WPy/q/MHjtn3WX3WLLkJ1MAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqatnWwFl5UqOlrOMzcwrpfu YuTkkBAwkbj6ag0bhC0mceHeeiCbi0NI4DCjxOaf89ghnGWMEif+nmcCqeIV0JZYevYbO4jN IqAqsWzxQWYQm03AQuLmj0awSaICwRLt27+yQdQLSpyc+YQFxBYRUJN4vfYzWJxZwFpizZx+ VhBbWMBPYt31Z2C2kECWxOH27WA2J9DMhZ++MENcJymxbdExdohePYkpV1sYIWx5ieats5kh erUlGpo6WCcwCs1CsnoWkpZZSFoWMDKvYmTPTczMSS833MQIDN2DW37r7mA8dU7kEKM0B4uS OO8mvTOBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhhF0qK3q3xdfrXo463bc7V2Xe6slfDf KNEVLCHB2yd9hEUm970dt2uA86GnBVOntQq8W8Cmf1Dg164Hj/wNnj7/2vh42/sZM0L91XSq 9iwQScza909lpvueuMwT0+s/H5Ep/SA///OrhkaNtS7pQmv078zZYGIq6DSdO18mh8vjRqXC fYaoh0ZKLMUZiYZazEXFiQA60o1KKwIAAA==
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:08:16 -0000

On 2013-09-10 22:15, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi Dale,
> We started working in it see
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01 
> Please review
> Roni Even

Roni, as WG chair I think you need to be a bit more clear in your
statement. You and your co-author has an individual proposal that the WG
should write and publish an RFC make the situation clearer.

I think the WG has choices in three main directions:

1) Do nothing
2) Update the registry
3) Write some type of RFC to provide further clarifications, possibly
updating any of the existing RFCs that defines current behavior.

As a chair I do like to get the WG participants view on which of these
directions you think is appropriate. Please do motivate why you think so.

Cheers

Magnus

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Dale R. Worley
>> Sent: 10 September, 2013 10:32 PM
>> To: avt@ietf.org
>> Subject: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
>>
>> Back in April, there was a discussion on the Mmusic mailing list regarding
>> updating the IANA registry for RTP payload types.
>> Primarily, this involves recording RFC 5761 as the primary defining
> document,
>> and updating the table of payload type ranges to match the usages assigned
>> by RFC 5761.  The proposal (as revised during the
>> discussion) is:
>>
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg10809.html
>>
>>     1) The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
>>     "[RFC5761][RFC3551]".
>>
>>     2) The final rows should be changed to
>>
>> 	35-63   Unassigned/secondary dynamic area       [RFC5761]
>> 	64-71   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
>> 	72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
>> 	77-95   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
>> 	96-127  Dynamic                                 [RFC3551]
>>
>> The discussion is (currently) indexed at http://www.ietf.org/mail-
>> archive/web/mmusic/current/thrd3.html,
>> starting at "Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?".
>> Eight people participated in the discussion (not counting myself).  It
> appeared
>> to me that there was agreement from all parties that it would be
> beneficial to
>> update the registry as proposed.  (Disagreement concerned whether further
>> information should be added to the registry describing further payload
> types
>> that could be used in situations where confusion with RTCP was not a
>> concern.)
>>
>> At the Berlin IETF, the Avtcore chairs presented this slide:
>>
>>     http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mmusic-7.pdf
>>     page 13
>>
>>     RTP Payload Types Registry
>>
>>     Result of discussion on MMUSIC list:
>>
>>     * The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
>>       "[RFC5761][RFC3551]".
>>       - RFC5761: Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single
>>       Port
>>       - RFC3551: RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences
>>
>>     * The final rows should be changed to
>>         35-63 Unassigned/secondary dynamic area [RFC5761]
>>         64-71 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC5761]
>>         72-76 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC3551]
>>         77-95 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC5761]
>>         96-127 Dynamic [RFC3551]
>>
>>     * To be reviewed by AVTCORE
>>
>> Consequently, I'd like to start the discussion of whether the registry
> should
>> be updated to mention RFC 5761.
>>
>> Dale
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------