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

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
Just to clarify, my response was as an individual which I should have stated
(not as WG chair)

I agree with Magnus list of choices and think that based on the MMUSIC
discussion option 1 is not relevant.

As for the other options I prefer the third option. Even though it repeats
text from RFC3551 and RFC5761 it also request to update the IANA registry.
It also makes recommendation about which pt numbers can be used for dynamic
mapping.

The update for the IANA registry was triggered by Dale's email thread.

I think it will be good to have also the pt number usage guidelines, this is
triggered by the open issue in section 3.2.1.2 of
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00.txt . 

The authors of draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01 are looking for feedback
from the WG at which direction to take and if there is support for having
such guidelines

Roni Even
As individual

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 11 September, 2013 9:09 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'Dale R. Worley'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC
> 5761?
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >> Dale R. Worley
> >> Sent: 10 September, 2013 10:32 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> 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 [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------