Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul

>
> How important do you think it is to easily determine all media types
> within a media type (audio or video, etc.) has an RTP payload format?
>  From my perspective that is least prioritized reason for the registry.

Here I'm not too concerned with the "easily" part.

AFAIK there is no requirement that the document specifying a registered
media type say anything about RTP. Just adding such a requirement would
satisfy my concern. Adding a column to the registry would also be nice.

MW: So I am not certain I understand what you are requesting. So RFC 4855 already requires the media type registration for RTP payload formats to note in the Restrictions on usage that they are for RTP:
     Restrictions on usage:
          The fact that the media type is defined for transfer via RTP
          MUST be noted, in particular, if the transfer depends on RTP
          framing and hence the media type is only defined for transfer
          via RTP.

So, did you think the reverse is needed, that non RTP payload format needs to note they do not have RTP payload format. We have a small number that have media types that have both file format and a RTP payload format.

Cheers
Magnus