Re: [AVT] Open issue on hdrext draft

[Dave Singer <[e-mail]>]

At 10:02  -0400 23/10/07, Tom Taylor wrote:
>This was the last word on the topic, quite a while ago. I think we 
>have agreement on Expert Review and a publicly available 
>specification. One of the criteria for the expert would be to 
>prevent excessive duplication of functionality. What else?

complies with the requirements of RTP and the hdrext specification, 
for extensions (notably, that the stream is still decodable if the 
extension is ignored or not recognized)

technical consistency (in itself and with RTP), completeness, and 
comprehensibility

does not duplicate functionality in existing IETF specifications 
(including RTP itself), or other extensions already registered

anything else?

>Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>
>>Dave Singer skrev:
>>>At 13:43  +0200 4/10/07, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>>>[e-mail] skrev:
>>>>
>>>>What we are discussing is what rules applies for the IETF URN space,
>>>>i.e. the header extensions that will look like they are blessed by IETF.
>>>>The current draft version was in fact a) as this specified
>>>>"Specification Required" from RFC 2434:
>>>>
>>>>"      Specification Required - Values and their meaning must be
>>>>            documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
>>>>            reference, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
>>>>            between independent implementations is possible."
>>>>
>>>>I think A is fine but would probably prefer this to be b) with explicit
>>>>rule requiring a publicly available specification.
>>>I'm sorry, I may have mis-written something, since I tried to agree with
>>>you here!  The current intention is that for the IETF URN space, a
>>>standards-track RFC is required.  And that for IANA registration, an
>>>IETF URN is required:
>>>
>>>"To be registered
>>>    with IANA, the extension MUST use this IETF URN form; to use the IETF
>>>    URN form, the extension MUST be defined in an RFC."
>>>
>>>If there is other text that isn't clear, can you tell me what it is?
>>
>>In section 9.1 of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext-13:
>>
>>    The rtp-hdrext namespace under urn:ietf:params: needs to be created
>>    for management, referenced to RFCxxxx.  Additions in this namespace
>>    shall be made on the basis of "Specification Required".
>>
>>Which indicates that you can add new entires only requiring a
>>specification which is actually a contradiction to what is written in
>>Section 5:
>>
>>    For extensions defined in RFCs, the URI used SHOULD be a URN starting
>>    "urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:" and followed by a registered,
>>    descriptive name.  These URNs are managed by IANA.  To be registered
>>    with IANA, the extension MUST use this IETF URN form; to use the IETF
>>    URN form, the extension MUST be defined in an RFC.
>>
>>
>>So I think you need to use the Standards Action level in 9.1 to match
>>the section 5 text.
>>
>>>>Having an expert look
>>>>at any registrations to ensure that they are not totally wacko is in my
>>>>book a good thing.
>>>Me too, no dispute here.
>>>
>>>>But at the same time put minimal bar on the
>>>>registrations. Other SDOs should basically be able to send in an email
>>>>with a request containing a reference and things usually go through.
>>>>
>>>So, you would permit non-IETF URIs in the IANA registry, also, after,
>>>what 'expert review' and with 'publicly available specification required'?
>>>
>>>That's fine by me also.
>>>
>>
>>I think we can allow people to use the public IANA registry for header
>>extensions as long as there is a reasonable and publicly available.
>>
>>Thus I would use Expert Review and some requirements on what the Expert
>>is allowed to approve. Where the primary is: Open publicly available
>>Specification. But there is likely that some more should be written.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>>Magnus Westerlund
>>
>>IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Ericsson AB                | Phone [phone]
>>Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   [phone]
>>S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt


-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt