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

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 224DF11E8203 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xk5yzkQA02DN for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0E011E80A2 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3842; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1378924250; x=1380133850; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qP7h+rKucE1fcLP1debrl6WVO8kZoKmwX8bC1kr/yAA=; b=GU2mJ75YpSqP6DS4Q7gkPB9hOGbDKDHEkPNym7o3jMAPPQcI8wMe1XkX fg3lmgHJYXX++x4rqpV+VMenuZPFS7Nf2Fo25MZCZUiHxloh5jZ+yG+zR LI0zZHeBs9uFw5DTfEbsrpVXurMvN3aTlUXun/zScumv9mvFVg2z6mtXg A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAHW2MFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABbgwc4UsACgRwWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc/DAQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId6DMAejzkxBwaDF4EAA5kokEODIoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,885,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="258462511"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2013 18:30:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8BIUmNq008071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:30:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.101]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:30:48 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Roni Even (ron.even.tlv@gmail.com)" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "Dale R. Worley (worley@ariadne.com)" <worley@ariadne.com>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
Thread-Index: AQHOrukHo+lHVq+nbEyXc10cGFlbGJnArksQ
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:30:47 +0000
Message-ID: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91D528CDD@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <201309101932.r8AJWOBj916357@shell01.TheWorld.com> <026301ceae62$8ff6d770$afe48650$@gmail.com> <523008E0.7050209@ericsson.com> <8357B75E-44D2-4C34-82BA-350447AEB48E@csperkins.org> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0A2BFA@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0A2BFA@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.150.29.189]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:30:55 -0000

RFC 5761 already has all bases covered in very clear text.
So I think the only thing needed is to update the registry.
The "Reference" should be "[RFC5761][RFC3551]", as Dale suggested.
The final rows should be updated as follows, almost as Dale suggested.

OLD:
35-71 Unassigned
72-76 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC3551]
77-95 Unassigned
96-127 dynamic [RFC3551]

NEW:
35-63 Unassigned
64-95 Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance [RFC5761][RFC3551]
96-127 dynamic [RFC5761][RFC3551]

This differs from the draft below, and slightly from what Dale suggested.
The draft allows 64-65 as dynamic, contrary to RFC5761, which is bad.
While 64-65 are historic, they are actually in use, even in the webrtc code!

Mo


-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:18 AM
To: Colin Perkins; Magnus Westerlund
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

At the time this was first discussed, there was a need to record things in the IANA registry that were not there. So yes, an update to the IANA registry is required, and that is not necessarily depending on progressing an RFC.

However, part of the proposal originally made were to express things in the IANA registry that were clearly not just a registration action for a codepoint. It is those aspects, if they are still required, that need an RFC.

I'd have to go back to the original mails to work out what those were, but put simply, if the action involves anything more than documenting a codepoint based on information in an existing RFC, then it needs a new RFC to cover it.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Colin Perkins
> Sent: 11 September 2013 12:01
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC
> 5761?
> 
> On 11 Sep 2013, at 07:08, Magnus Westerlund
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-09-10 22:15, Roni Even wrote:
> >> Hi Dale,
> >> We started working in it see
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01
> >> Please review
> >> Roni Even
> >
> > Roni, as WG chair I think you need to be a bit more clear in your
> > statement. You and your co-author has an individual proposal that the WG
> should write and publish an RFC make the situation clearer.
> >
> > I think the WG has choices in three main directions:
> >
> > 1) Do nothing
> > 2) Update the registry
> > 3) Write some type of RFC to provide further clarifications, possibly
> > updating any of the existing RFCs that defines current behavior.
> >
> > As a chair I do like to get the WG participants view on which of these
> > directions you think is appropriate. Please do motivate why you think so.
> 
> 
> I think the working group chairs should ask IANA to fix the registry. It
> is clearly an oversight that the IANA considerations of RFC 5761 didn't
> ask IANA to make the changes at the time, and that RFC is very clear what
> payload types need to be reserved, so I'd expect IANA to be willing to do
> this without needing an additional RFC.
> 
> If not, I'm happy to file an errata statement on the IANA considerations
> of RFC 5761.
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
avt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt