Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry and RFC 5761
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 10 March 2014 16:32 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634181A04B6 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1GB7BvWO0nr for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C609E1A0496 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d8e000002a7b-eb-531de916749e
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3A.1F.10875.619ED135; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:22 +0100
Message-ID: <531DE916.8080208@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:32:22 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org
References: <52E132E5.40207@ericsson.com> <CALw1_Q0=jmmxmwGkmfLmrz4i6PFhnMWjzC+KB=dj2jsgSpxs5Q@mail.gmail.com> <530D9EE0.80600@ericsson.com> <CALw1_Q3DwU05=bDqU_rgtn71cF8q9NPvBgF89VKt3+TtkvgbAw@mail.gmail.com> <5315E873.3030304@ericsson.com> <53175A5A.7090805@ericsson.com> <53176E7F.3090906@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <53176E7F.3090906@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7YS9lgg87vZhYve1ayOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY8Ob52wFV+Qq1tzeyNTA+Ea8i5GDQ0LARGLSPsEuRk4gU0zi wr31bF2MXBxCAocYJQ539bFDOMsZJY7c/cUKUsUroC3xvH8rE4jNIqAq8eZnKzuIzSZgIXHz RyMbiC0qECyx88BvRoh6QYmTM5+wgNgiAkIS0/sngPUKC7hJLF38HWrbRiaJN997wJo5BXQk lnYuZIW4TlyipzEIJMwsoCcx5WoLI4QtL9G8dTYziC0EdE9DUwfrBEbBWUjWzULSMgtJywJG 5lWM7LmJmTnp5YabGIHhd3DLb90djKfOiRxilOZgURLn/fDWOUhIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQn tfgQIxMHp1QDo09m74U9m7UD3vh7sKpdY53swphSGib5xy5Wvonxz6x5fZtn97i9uP7nbfbj K6Yfw5pW2p6fu801P+Kzjpurk2SlQ0LSJ2Pf9cWaIZwNU+OZZ/l7vnJPuuc0qbSaV6oo0liZ wYpl92bGXVoKcxXmF6YHGWk8mDtnoldVxjc2zR1nL6nc6QxSYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA8SM6WQ0C AAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/DvtZzC8VG40TNCQggrJ_nGYw3EA
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry and RFC 5761
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:31 -0000
WG, For your information I have submitted this request. It might be some time (weeks) before this goes in to the registry. In my conversation with IANA they indicated that they likely will make this a IESG management item. This means that it will go in front of the IESG for approval. Slight overkill from my perspective, but I do understand IANA wanting to ensure that there is one decision to point at if someone questions the change. cheers Magnus On 2014-03-05 19:35, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > WG, > > Got word smithed text from Stephen Casner: > > The RFC "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal > Control" [RFC3551] specified an initial set "payload types". This > registry maintained that list. The registry is now closed, see RFC > 3551. No additional registrations will be done. The payload types > that have a static mapping are the ones listed below (0-34). > > The set of types marked "Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance" in > this table may not be kept current. [RTCP Control Packet types > (PT)] below lists the RTCP types that have actually been > registered. Subtract 128 from the RTCP Packet Type value to find > the corresponding PT value with collision risk. For further > information see RFC 5761. > > If you seek guidance on which PT values to use for assigning > dynamic payload types, see RFC 3551 (Section 3) and RFC 5761 > (Section 4). > > Thanks, > > Magnus > > > On 2014-03-05 17:09, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> WG, >> >> I received some feedback on this from Stephen Casner, so I have proposed >> some changes. This merges the first and second paragraph and addresses >> the tenses. >> >> AVTCORE WG requests that IANA adds the below note to the registry: >> >> RTP Payload types (PT) for standard audio and video encodings >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-1 >> >> The current note reads: >> >> Note >> >> The RFC "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal >> Control" [RFC3551] specifies an initial set "payload types". This >> list maintains and extends that list. >> >> The WG requests that this is change to: >> >> Note >> >> The RFC "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal >> Control" [RFC3551] specified an initial set "payload types". This >> registry maintained that list. The registry is now closed, see >> RFC 3551. No additional registrations will be done. The payload >> types that have a static mapping are the below ones (0-34). >> >> The "Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance" in this table is not up >> to date. [RTCP Control Packet types (PT)] below lists the RTCP >> types that has actually been registered. Subtract 128 from the >> RTCP Packet Type value to find the corresponding PT value with >> collision risk. For further information see RFC 5761. >> >> If you seek guidance on which PT values to use for assigning >> dynamic payload types, then that is present in RFC 3551 (Section 3) >> and RFC 5761 (Section 4). >> >> >> Note, if possible I would request that "[RTCP Control Packet types >> (PT)]" is made into ling with the following URL: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-4 >> >> > > -- Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry and … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Adam Roach
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Kevin Gross
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Kevin Gross
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry … Magnus Westerlund