Re: [AVTCORE] IANAs payload type number registry and RFC 5761

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-01-23 21:22, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 1/23/14 10:49, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>>> From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
>>> I believe a good note for this registry would contain three things.
>>> [etc.]
>> A note containing all of this information would satisfy my concerns.
>>
> 
> It's not my preferred solution, but I can live with this as well.
> 

What would your preferred solution be? To update the registry?

I am personally hesitant to do that for the following reasons:

1. It is a closed registry

2. The registries purpose was to capture which static assignments that
had been made.

3. The dynamic payload type recommendations are done in RFC 3551.

4. If one is using the RTP/RTCP multiplexing of RFC 5761 that applies
also, but we do have different set of rules depending on if one is using
RFC5761 or not. That is difficult to capture in a static table.

5. The RTCP reservations are done in a different table, including an
indication of what the primary and secondary ranges for assignment are.

6. The PT's, i.e. lower 7 bits of the packets types that would collides
with is a ever changing. So updating it today doesn't help, if we are
going to use it in this way would need to continue to ensure that all
new RTCP packet types that goes into the RTCP Packet type registry also
get a line in the Payload type registry.

These are the reasons why I think a note being a better solution.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------