[AVTCORE] Re: AD review : draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:02 PM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Magnus said:
>
> "I think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA
> registration rule changes."
>
> [BA] Yes.  In particular, the IANA rule changes will affect the IANA
> considerations section of future standards track documents.
>

How is that? We closing an registry and updating the instructions, how is
that going to affect future PS? I am trying to understand.

//Zahed


>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 4:02 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, we didn’t have any deeper discussion of it is intended status. I
>> think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA
>> registration rule changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> So if you want to run this as informational please go ahead. I think
>> personally think it would be wrong to not ensure that this change was done
>> on an level that ensure that this is not questioned. I continue to see the
>> change to RFC 8088 as a secondary impact and thus okay to just tag along in
>> this document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 17 September 2024 at 11:54
>> *To: *Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] AD review :
>> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 2:36 PM Magnus Westerlund <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> To answer this question:
>>
>>
>>
>> RFC 8088 is informaitonal, so what I am trying to understand - why do we
>> need a PS to update an information spec?
>>
>>
>>
>> This document is PS because it affects a change to IANA registries,
>>
>>
>>
>> Informational can also affect IANA registries.
>>
>>
>>
>> although the origin of this registry is a bit unclear is related to RFC
>> 4855 that is standards track (Proposed standard). In my view it is suitable
>> to have this status level to accomplish this change?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, related, but does not change anything or update RFC4855. I noted the
>> shephard write-up does not explain why PS is needed, I am trying to get an
>> answer to note it in the write-up. I am also wondering if we have ever
>> discussed this in the group if yes, then we can directly point to the
>> conversation and leave this discussion here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly the Informational document on how to write an RTP payload format
>> (RFC 8088) does have an instruction to the author to register in the
>> registry we kill. We don’t want to leave that instruction uncommented and
>> in effect. So, either we make a change in this document of the
>> informational instructions in RFC 8088, or we will have to do a revision of
>> RFC 8088 in coordination with this document. From my perspective, doing a
>> document update in standards track document of text in an informational
>> document does not raise the changed text to standards track level.
>>
>>
>>
>> For all that this document does not need to be a PS. We can upate one
>> infomational with another one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this clarifies things.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>