[AVTCORE] [IANA #1283165] RTP payload format type registry vs. MIME-type registry

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 18:54
Subject: [IANA #1283165] FW: [Ext] RTP payload format type registry vs.
MIME-type registry
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <
[e-mail]>


Hi Bernard, all,

Sabrina Tanamal ([e-mail], bcc'd on all IETF-related
ticketing system messages) and I are the people to contact about this, but
you can reach anyone in IANA via [e-mail], which is heavily monitored
throughout the day.

Before we forward this to an ART AD, could you give us the list of
registrations/references (along with any information that should be added
to the entries' "Clock Rate (Hz)" and Channels (audio)" fields) that need
to be added to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-2?


In the registry itself, the registration procedures are listed as
"Standards Action or Expert Review." (Given that RFC 4855 doesn't mention
an expert, it's not clear when the latter policy is meant to be applied.)
The ADs haven't had a chance to replace Steve Casner as expert, but an AD
can tell us at least how this registry can be updated (e.g. can we make the
RFC-related registrations now?), if not actually fill that expert role.

The issue is that we haven't been asked to add these, and we don't appear
to have been asked to look for triggers that would tell us to initiate a
registration (which we aren't really equipped to do; here in operations, we
maintain 3500 registries and are liberal arts majors).

And the authors would have been aware that we weren't making those RTP
registrations. When we reviewed RFC 7741 during IETF Last Call, for
example, we told the authors/chairs/IESG that we understood from the IANA
Considerations section that the only action was to add the media type to
the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types, and asked
them to respond if that was incorrect. After we made that registration, as
with the other RFCs mentioned below, the authors reviewed it and confirmed
that the registry actions were complete and correct.

You also mentioned
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-payload-vp9 below. That
IANA Considerations section is clear, but we won't make the registrations
until the IESG approves the document.

For any media type registrations made by SDOs, we also would have needed to
receive an explicit request to add an RTP registration or an instruction
from a media type expert who reviewed the request (followed by the RTP
expert approval). However, I don't know whether the media type expert would
have been aware that they were the only person who might flag it, or that
the SDO wouldn't have already been submitting a separate request.

I can ask the AD if IANA should be looking for a trigger here, given that
media types registered by RFCs aren't subject to an official expert review.
Except in rare cases that require escalation (for example, an issue related
to .arpa or LGRs, which would involve IANA directly), those of us in
operations aren't involved in looking at technical content (unless given
specific non-technical instructions).

Also, Harald: is there anything here that should be brought to the
attention of the mediaman WG?

thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager