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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zahed,

Yes, your sentences are clearer. I have substituted the paragraph and submitted -02.

/Magnus

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 15:21
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD review : draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry
Hi,

Thanks for working on closing the unused registry where we even don't how it was created.

I have an editorial suggestion. Then following text is well understandable in the introducton section however, it is kind of not that well conducted in abstract. I have following proposal

OLD:

To resolve this situation this document performs the following.

   First it updates the registry to include known RTP payload formats at

   the time of writing.  Then it closes the IANA Registry for RTP

   Payload formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond

   instructing IANA to close this registry, the instructions to authors

   in RFC 8088 are updated to reflect this.



NEW:



This document resolves the situation by first updating the RTP Payload Format Media Type registry to include all the known RTP payload formats at

   the time of writing, then it closes this IANA Registry for any future registration.  Beyond

   instructing IANA to close this registry, the instructions to authors

   in RFC 8088 are updated to reflect this.




If this is something that makes sense, then please update the draft and I will directly start the IETF LC.

//Zahed