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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

No, we didn’t have any deeper discussion of it is intended status. I think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA registration rule changes.

So if you want to run this as informational please go ahead. I think personally think it would be wrong to not ensure that this change was done on an level that ensure that this is not questioned. I continue to see the change to RFC 8088 as a secondary impact and thus okay to just tag along in this document.

Cheers

Magnus

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 17 September 2024 at 11:54
To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review : draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry


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