Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,

I think I may be missing something:

Surely there are some media types that aren't suitable for use with RTP. 
(E.g., image/jpeg, application/calendar+json.) With this change, how can 
someone distinguish a media type that may be used with RTP from one that 
may not?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 4/2/24 5:07 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi AVTCORE,
> 
> I have now submitted my very short draft that tries to clean up the 
> situation around the RTP Payload Type registry. Please review and I 
> think if people agree to this adminstrative action we should go on an 
> adopt this as a WG item.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus  Westerlund
> 
> A new version of Internet-Draft
> draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt has been successfully
> submitted by Magnus Westerlund and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:     draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
> Revision: 00
> Title:    Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
> Date:     2024-04-02
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    5
> URL: 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.txt>
> 
>   Status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/>
> HTML: 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.html <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00.html>
> 
> HTMLized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00>
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>     It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats
>     often forget to register themselves in the IANA regsitry "RTP Payload
>     Formats Media Types".  In practice this has no real impact.  One
>     reason is that the Media Types registry is the crucial regsistry to
>     register any Media Type to establish the media type used to
>     identified the format in various signalling usage.
> 
>     To resolve this sitaution this document performs the following.
>     First it updates the registry to include known RTP payload formats at
>     the time of writing.  Then it closes the IANA Registry for RTP
>     Payload formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond
>     instructing IANA to close this registry the instructions to authors
>     in RFC 8088 are updated that registration is no longer required in
>     the closed registry.
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt