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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 1:01 PM 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.
>

I see. If the shephard's write-up would have included the reasoning behind
the default choice then it would have been best.

>
>
> So if you want to run this as informational please go ahead.
>

No I don't want to run this as informational, rather I want to know why we
are running it as PS. I wanted to make sure we thought about it and have
good reason for running it as PS. Unfortunately, we are failing on a good
reasoning. Does anyone else has stronger motivation?

//Zahed


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>