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
----------------------------------------------------------------------