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

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

I updated the shepard writeup to provide the justification for the Proposed
Standard designation, along the lines that Magnus provided.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 9:18 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 4:41 PM Magnus Westerlund <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see below. If you are not happy with the answer lets schedule an
>> call to try to resolve this so that we don’t spend too much time on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 17 September 2024 at 14:38
>> *To: *Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AVTCORE] Re: AD review :
>> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 2:02 PM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Magnus said:
>>
>>
>>
>> "I think both I and the chairs defaulted to Proposed due to the IANA
>> registration rule changes."
>>
>>
>>
>> [BA] Yes.  In particular, the IANA rule changes will affect the IANA
>> considerations section of future standards track documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> How is that? We closing an registry and updating the instructions, how is
>> that going to affect future PS? I am trying to understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> MW: So I assume what Bernard meant here is the praxis (encoded in RFC
>> 8088) to in all RTP Payload format specification (including the standards
>> track) to register the RTP Payload format, and this document changes what
>> we are expected to do. Thus, affecting what is written in future standards
>> track documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the arguments for making this PS is that having scrutinized this
>> change on PS level ensures that we have established sufficient consensus to
>> make this change and close this registry which was created in relation to
>> an standards track RFC 4855.
>>
>>
>>
>> If IANA and the IESG is okay to take this document through despite it is
>> unclearness in how the registry came into existence as Informational then I
>> fine with this. I think you simple have to ask yourselves what will cause
>> least problem here.
>>
>
> That is what I am trying to do :-).
>
>
>> It appears that both I as author and the WG chairs think PS would cause
>> the least amount of future issue with this document. If you as AD have
>> indication that this would not be the case then change the intended status.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think you will get much clearer answer, at least my choice is
>> based on the unclarity in how the registry came into existence and by
>> ensuring this have been reviewed as a standards action it can’t be
>> questioned after its approval.
>>
>
> This argument that due to unclarity of existance of the registry the WG
> agreed to have a PS document to close this. This makes sense to me. I would
> like the document shepherd ( @[e-mail] ) to capture this
> in the write-up. I will proceed when this is done.
>
> Thanks for the cooperation!!
>
> //Zahed
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>