[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
Message-Id: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
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
- [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to r… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Colin Perkins
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Roni Even
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Dale R. Worley
- Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry … Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)