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

"Roni Even" <> Wed, 04 September 2013 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870D111E80D2 for <>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UhIeZNeqldGX for <>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD96121F940D for <>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p58so1717564wes.37 for <>; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=43gADGv+rKQLyJji8nWduomv64m6saG3GpQ2K+4SuEQ=; b=rawdXJME2rTUlmAS5tQgZvYbwKQh+XAMjaGFLOHl8byeNS1wmYoOAD0atWIm/tRMQ6 9ck7Wa7OriWqJY/BfEjxxcfpF7B9expE5KNOEXi8vOdEohg+aoxTlOREZF8id1o46JDl Cn8YYgDq3G0HwAyLxgmDrkRkSQxHvpIX8RnWi0119tNbTgSQY8RhQHe+3DkxtT9ZT3FC U+sif6pZBHF9ZxjpmSyL07GJAZd4MHYiNs0gOXj7nV+f+jdXQTK3mz6MJ56Mf7Gjpzo7 GjKS24dDONzmFkCupkdorrbxa/7sAKuCBkqjr907pXwE4+m2BMZ7NF6Mfw9t18I8EeKk Yn0A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id lr3mr875420wjb.21.1378272786722; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i3sm1111256wiw.7.1969. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Colin Perkins'" <>
References: <> <008201cea59e$aa9fd3a0$ffdf7ae0$> <> <015a01cea7d3$62c3cbe0$284b63a0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:30:28 +0300
Message-ID: <031001cea92f$df4ff780$9defe680$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0311_01CEA949.049EDD30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJijinmfWhztVhxPxTz4Z/AzXtx5QIuWAw/AlLADJMB5bKXwgHzIspcmEpyrbA=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 05:33:09 -0000

Hi Colin,

We will update the document provide the updated table.

The document adds two things to RFC 5761, it clarifies and  recommend the
order by which to use the pt numbers. it allows as an  option to use pt
umber 64 and 65 .

This will make it easier for implementers mostly because of the need for pt
numbers when using bundle.



From: Colin Perkins [] 
Sent: 03 September, 2013 7:20 PM
To: Roni Even
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for


Hi Roni,


On 2 Sep 2013, at 12:55, Roni Even <> wrote:

Hi Colin,
The major motivation is to update the closed IANA registry
meters-1 that points to RFC 3551 and does not have the right allocations by
referring to this document , I have the wrong pointer in the draft. This is
based on the email thread started with the attached email.


I would have thought that could be resolved with an email to IANA, rather
than a new draft, since all you're doing is updating the registry to match
the published RFCs.

The other reason is to clarify which payload types from the range 0-95 can
be used for dynamic mapping and in what order. This is based on the MMUSIC
session in Berlin and the open issue in section of 


But, the draft just seems to repeat the guidelines in RFC 5761 and 3551. The
only difference seems to be to give an explicit order in which the
unassigned payload type numbers are to be used, which seems unnecessary.






-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins []
Sent: 02 September, 2013 1:07 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: WG
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-


Can you explain what's new in this draft? As far as I can tell, it just

repeats the

guidance in RFCs 3551 and 5761.


On 30 Aug 2013, at 17:33, Roni Even <> wrote:

Apologize for the cross posting. Please comment only in avtcore
mailing list

We have submitted a draft that clarifies the usage of dynamic payload



This is based on email discussion in MMUSIC Thanks Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 30 August, 2013 7:29 PM
To: Qin Wu; Wenson Wu; Rachel Huang; Roni Even; Rachel Huang
Subject: New Version Notification for

A new version of I-D, draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Qin Wu and posted to the IETF


Filename:       draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage
Revision:       00
Title:              Guideline for dynamic payload type number usage


Creation date:            2013-08-30
Group:                       Individual Submission
Number of pages: 5






 The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
 (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
 Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
 Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
 AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based Feedback
 (RTP/SAVPF).  This document updates RFC 3551 and provide guidelines
 for payload type number usage policy.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of

submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at

The IETF Secretariat

Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance

Colin Perkins

<Mail Attachment.eml>




Colin Perkins