Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

At the time this was first discussed, there was a need to record things in the IANA registry that were not there. So yes, an update to the IANA registry is required, and that is not necessarily depending on progressing an RFC.

However, part of the proposal originally made were to express things in the IANA registry that were clearly not just a registration action for a codepoint. It is those aspects, if they are still required, that need an RFC.

I'd have to go back to the original mails to work out what those were, but put simply, if the action involves anything more than documenting a codepoint based on information in an existing RFC, then it needs a new RFC to cover it.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Colin Perkins
> Sent: 11 September 2013 12:01
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC
> 5761?
> 
> On 11 Sep 2013, at 07:08, Magnus Westerlund
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-09-10 22:15, Roni Even wrote:
> >> Hi Dale,
> >> We started working in it see
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-01
> >> Please review
> >> Roni Even
> >
> > Roni, as WG chair I think you need to be a bit more clear in your
> > statement. You and your co-author has an individual proposal that the WG
> should write and publish an RFC make the situation clearer.
> >
> > I think the WG has choices in three main directions:
> >
> > 1) Do nothing
> > 2) Update the registry
> > 3) Write some type of RFC to provide further clarifications, possibly
> > updating any of the existing RFCs that defines current behavior.
> >
> > As a chair I do like to get the WG participants view on which of these
> > directions you think is appropriate. Please do motivate why you think so.
> 
> 
> I think the working group chairs should ask IANA to fix the registry. It
> is clearly an oversight that the IANA considerations of RFC 5761 didn't
> ask IANA to make the changes at the time, and that RFC is very clear what
> payload types need to be reserved, so I'd expect IANA to be willing to do
> this without needing an additional RFC.
> 
> If not, I'm happy to file an errata statement on the IANA considerations
> of RFC 5761.
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt