Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt

Adam Roach <> Tue, 14 January 2014 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AECE1AE1B0 for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:06:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.035
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 291PtVgaRYDM for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289041AE1A5 for <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s0EK6N8A077025 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:18 -0600
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <>, Roni Even <>
References: <> <008201cea59e$aa9fd3a0$ffdf7ae0$> <> <015a01cea7d3$62c3cbe0$284b63a0$> <> <031001cea92f$df4ff780$9defe680$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010607060304070309040209"
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "" <>,
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:06:48 -0000

On 9/4/13 17:13, Colin Perkins wrote:
> I really don't think you need a new draft to update this table. There 
> is an existing RFC that reserves those payload types; just ask IANA to 
> make the correction to the registry.

I agree. I think this is a simple administrative action to update the 
registry to match the facts on the ground as documented by the 
already-published RFC 5761. I think that either the AVT chairs or the 
RAI ADs would be well within process to ask the IANA to fix the registry 
to match currently published RFCs; we do stuff like this all the time 
when oversights in registries are spotted.

If we want to also publish a PT guidance document, great. I think that 
would be useful, too. But we don't need to predicate fixing the registry 
to match the already-published RFCs on having that document finished.