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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 2:36 PM Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> To answer this question:
>
>
>
> RFC 8088 is informaitonal, so what I am trying to understand - why do we
> need a PS to update an information spec?
>
>
>
> This document is PS because it affects a change to IANA registries,
>

Informational can also affect IANA registries.

although the origin of this registry is a bit unclear is related to RFC
> 4855 that is standards track (Proposed standard). In my view it is suitable
> to have this status level to accomplish this change?
>

Yes, related, but does not change anything or update RFC4855. I noted the
shephard write-up does not explain why PS is needed, I am trying to get an
answer to note it in the write-up. I am also wondering if we have ever
discussed this in the group if yes, then we can directly point to the
conversation and leave this discussion here.


>
>
> Secondly the Informational document on how to write an RTP payload format
> (RFC 8088) does have an instruction to the author to register in the
> registry we kill. We don’t want to leave that instruction uncommented and
> in effect. So, either we make a change in this document of the
> informational instructions in RFC 8088, or we will have to do a revision of
> RFC 8088 in coordination with this document. From my perspective, doing a
> document update in standards track document of text in an informational
> document does not raise the changed text to standards track level.
>

For all that this document does not need to be a PS. We can upate one
infomational with another one.


>
>
>
>
> Hope this clarifies things.
>
>
>
> /Magnus
>
>
>
>
>