Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

Hi Dale,
We started working in it see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01 
Please review
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Dale R. Worley
> Sent: 10 September, 2013 10:32 PM
> To: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt