IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVTCORE] Fwd: RTP payload format type registry vs. MIME-type registry

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 03 October 2023 23:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 28FB3C180ED0 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZ7Vu6aIuTXh for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590C8C151095 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-690d2e13074so1196168b3a.1 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696377563; x=1696982363; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aNjGvEVxVCWrv6uyPuSKVQgeTguG+MlNja4ZX0YdlKI=; b=MLDHmfC21NOuM9YbfDyHkVgMnmqJeqm+nzAMbO+0w9hmLAza4/nT1QPpL+GAVH2PqP 6pBHlAMCNlwic4xTlAKLsF6BCVH+GvGppT4JmNwXSdkhae5coSkIlPMDuNn/v03Bz17V jN75qVYS/Qi+IP0cc1HVpcTWOH03xFq8u/f/5CwjGQYoiIQW4fyDV2rFyg+cDM3CLyAs KkP+bsms6wP4jYXnU7loUixFSivHgNt8XUx96q48Tc+DeiB9gRCMCw18P9FrM38nL/D2 2j8gYjxwNd9t4BCOgSYc8JCoKzp/WqftAZtI14AmEnZFVHMikkRCarCsibNkmE3BLico EvGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696377563; x=1696982363; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aNjGvEVxVCWrv6uyPuSKVQgeTguG+MlNja4ZX0YdlKI=; b=Mxp4l0htSIWb2TO9ZzeB3pXlRcxnjMM+yHOzGZ+i5nM8wpRX01iCvmouhti+RIEfXu pATUP5hwnmFGZ48F/pZkixockSc0T/LcI3yemUY0G1lCT0DHdBQCWXWlb3VPer1gZmMh 0cdmeclibNOnFRbHltD5oy88Kw5nFE8UC78B2yk1AiOkPdmTuLCLakRC9T+U7OAgbp1h 6o7C9uX0IwPDvZBmKOVjtFK9Be+rEavJ/lRWpgIwohAljMPhj+ZXXTXgUf/cxtSKOr4c liX7alo+U9qG1blIWllbDBZoqdgmkruDlx9qGtlX6EOJyQQL7GPAHTF/FcC/IA4Q3wyz 1ukg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwiFMgktFdjMbZF1dFXJz4F3Sa0biBWqZjwCfAlg8esvPtAu67U xB4LzwOiIJtmNzPs/b7kFb+kw5jE+tWMTXjezRBSPmTOcum9NQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGSvMW+Q30z5/m56vFWWpc6bFDgyFsu2szplTz6gyRRcFwOtrE6ZnUWz2DZDWkqgs+WwYYCmRmA/MGJU5FAirw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:3a08:b0:693:4a43:1c7e with SMTP id fj8-20020a056a003a0800b006934a431c7emr975588pfb.29.1696377563263; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOW+2dtf_Tr80+9+jAjWt+WykUxZWvbxmysPUQwcpWM8UGzYVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dtf_Tr80+9+jAjWt+WykUxZWvbxmysPUQwcpWM8UGzYVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:59:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtq1ttke1zw89S2n+1_J-SSfC3LVi-=hrmhdfp6zxQj3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000010390e0606d8ae26"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/QsPtgTxMftcK6RUrlqdF9_xEz4c>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Fwd: RTP payload format type registry vs. MIME-type registry
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 Oct 2023 23:59:47 -0000

On August 29, 2023 a post to the W3C public-webrtc mailing list pointed out
an issue with IANA RTP payload format type registrations:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2023Aug/0033.html

The RTP payload format registry, which is referenced by the W3C WebRTC-PC
specification, omits entries for widely deployed video codecs, including
VP8 (RFC 7741), HEVC (RFC 7798), VVC (RFC 9328) and AV1 (
https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-rtp-spec/):
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-2

However, the IANA mime-types registry (see “video”) is more complete,
including entries for the missing codecs:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

At the IETF AVTCORE WG interim meeting on September 26, the WG discussed
the discrepancy and based on the discussion, it appears that the divergence
between the two registries is inadvertent.   Jonathan and I took the action
item to consult with IANA to explore ways we could address the divergence.

I have sent an email to IANA relating to the registries and will report
back to the WG at IETF 118 about potential options for addressing the
divergence.

Notes
--------

The VP8 RTP payload format (RFC 7741) Media-type Section 6.1 references
both the RFC 6838 Mime-type registration template as well as the RFC 4855
RTP payload format registration, yet VP8 was only registered in the
Mime-type registry.

The VP9 RTP payload format (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-vp9/) Media-Type
Section 7 references both RFC 6838 and RFC 4855.  VP9 was registered in
both registries.

The HEVC RTP payload format (RFC 7798) Media-type Section 7.1 mentions only
that "The media subtype for the HEVC codec is allocated from the IETF tree"
which would appear to refer to the MIME-type registry. It was registered
only in the MIME-type registry.

The VVC RTP payload format (RFC 9328) Media-type Section 7.1 does not
include an explicit indication of which registry to use for the
registration. It was registered only in the MIME-type registry.

The AV1 RTP payload format Media-type Section 7.1 (
https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-rtp-spec/#71-media-type-definition)
refers explicitly to the MIME-type registry (
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/AV1 ) It was registered
only in the MIME-type registry.

The EVC RTP payload format (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-evc) Media-type Section
7.1 does not include an explicit indication of which registry to use for
the registration.  Should we add a reference to RFC 4855 so as to indicate
that it should be registered in both the RTP payload format and MIME-type
registries?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email