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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 10 September 2013 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
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 3BF3B21E80B0 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 VFCdKSPtWzAJ for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls4.std.com [192.74.137.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B53321E80B3 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8AJWOXP025602; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:32:26 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r8AJWOxL917501; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:32:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r8AJWOBj916357; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:32:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:32:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: avt@ietf.org
Subject: [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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:33:23 -0000

Back in April, there was a discussion on the Mmusic mailing list
regarding updating the IANA registry for RTP payload types.
Primarily, this involves recording RFC 5761 as the primary defining
document, and updating the table of payload type ranges to match the
usages assigned by RFC 5761.  The proposal (as revised during the
discussion) is:

    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg10809.html

    1) The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
    "[RFC5761][RFC3551]".

    2) The final rows should be changed to

	35-63   Unassigned/secondary dynamic area       [RFC5761]
	64-71   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
	72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
	77-95   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
	96-127  Dynamic                                 [RFC3551]

The discussion is (currently) indexed at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/thrd3.html,
starting at "Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?".
Eight people participated in the discussion (not counting myself).  It
appeared to me that there was agreement from all parties that it would
be beneficial to update the registry as proposed.  (Disagreement
concerned whether further information should be added to the registry
describing further payload types that could be used in situations
where confusion with RTCP was not a concern.)

At the Berlin IETF, the Avtcore chairs presented this slide:

    http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mmusic-7.pdf
    page 13

    RTP Payload Types Registry

    Result of discussion on MMUSIC list:

    * The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
      "[RFC5761][RFC3551]".
      - RFC5761: Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single
      Port
      - RFC3551: RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences

    * The final rows should be changed to
        35-63 Unassigned/secondary dynamic area [RFC5761]
        64-71 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC5761]
        72-76 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC3551]
        77-95 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC5761]
        96-127 Dynamic [RFC3551]

    * To be reviewed by AVTCORE

Consequently, I'd like to start the discussion of whether the registry
should be updated to mention RFC 5761.

Dale