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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 4:41 PM Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Please see below. If you are not happy with the answer lets schedule an
> call to try to resolve this so that we don’t spend too much time on it.
>
>
>
> *From: *Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 17 September 2024 at 14:38
> *To: *Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] Re: AD review :
> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:02 PM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Magnus said:
>
>
>
> "I think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA
> registration rule changes."
>
>
>
> [BA] Yes.  In particular, the IANA rule changes will affect the IANA
> considerations section of future standards track documents.
>
>
>
> How is that? We closing an registry and updating the instructions, how is
> that going to affect future PS? I am trying to understand.
>
>
>
> MW: So I assume what Bernard meant here is the praxis (encoded in RFC
> 8088) to in all RTP Payload format specification (including the standards
> track) to register the RTP Payload format, and this document changes what
> we are expected to do. Thus, affecting what is written in future standards
> track documents.
>
>
>
> So the arguments for making this PS is that having scrutinized this change
> on PS level ensures that we have established sufficient consensus to make
> this change and close this registry which was created in relation to an
> standards track RFC 4855.
>
>
>
> If IANA and the IESG is okay to take this document through despite it is
> unclearness in how the registry came into existence as Informational then I
> fine with this. I think you simple have to ask yourselves what will cause
> least problem here.
>

That is what I am trying to do :-).


> It appears that both I as author and the WG chairs think PS would cause
> the least amount of future issue with this document. If you as AD have
> indication that this would not be the case then change the intended status.
>
>
>
> I don’t think you will get much clearer answer, at least my choice is
> based on the unclarity in how the registry came into existence and by
> ensuring this have been reviewed as a standards action it can’t be
> questioned after its approval.
>

This argument that due to unclarity of existance of the registry the WG
agreed to have a PS document to close this. This makes sense to me. I would
like the document shepherd ( @[e-mail] ) to capture this in
the write-up. I will proceed when this is done.

Thanks for the cooperation!!

//Zahed




>
>
> /Magnus
>
>
>
>
>
>