Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Wed, 11 September 2013 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71C021F99F7 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IfGQ7umlIaUK for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [93.93.130.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ED921F8B4E for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.209.247.112] (port=55724 helo=mangole.dcs.gla.ac.uk) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1VJiAW-000369-66; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:01:10 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <523008E0.7050209@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:01:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8357B75E-44D2-4C34-82BA-350447AEB48E@csperkins.org>
References: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com> <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com> <523008E0.7050209@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: Threshold = On =
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:01:38 -0000

On 11 Sep 2013, at 07:08, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2013-09-10 22:15, Roni Even wrote:
>> Hi Dale,
>> We started working in it see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01 
>> Please review
>> Roni Even
> 
> Roni, as WG chair I think you need to be a bit more clear in your
> statement. You and your co-author has an individual proposal that the WG should write and publish an RFC make the situation clearer.
> 
> I think the WG has choices in three main directions:
> 
> 1) Do nothing
> 2) Update the registry
> 3) Write some type of RFC to provide further clarifications, possibly
> updating any of the existing RFCs that defines current behavior.
> 
> As a chair I do like to get the WG participants view on which of these
> directions you think is appropriate. Please do motivate why you think so.


I think the working group chairs should ask IANA to fix the registry. It is clearly an oversight that the IANA considerations of RFC 5761 didn't ask IANA to make the changes at the time, and that RFC is very clear what payload types need to be reserved, so I'd expect IANA to be willing to do this without needing an additional RFC.

If not, I'm happy to file an errata statement on the IANA considerations of RFC 5761.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/