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

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 16 May 2013 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEADC21F8F6E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YNvFqWJlMC9v for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8BA21F8FC4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 08:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (svani@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4GFlcJO013205; Thu, 16 May 2013 11:47:41 -0400
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r4GFlcGn4864532; Thu, 16 May 2013 11:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r4GFlckY4863857; Thu, 16 May 2013 11:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <201305161547.r4GFlckY4863857@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <008d01ce4fb6$47860250$d69206f0$@gmail.com> (ron.even.tlv@gmail.com)
References: <201304251725.r3PHPqeV3429515@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6DC561@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <51798419.7070103@nostrum.com> <517A23B4.3060801@ericsson.com> <201304261820.r3QIKq913501941@shell01.TheWorld.com> <51909E36.9050407@ericsson.com> <008d01ce4fb6$47860250$d69206f0$@gmail.com>
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, mmusic@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:48:09 -0000

> From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
> 
> I am also concerned about putting in the registries the different case where
> RTCP mux is used or not. I think the best we can do is add a general note in
> the registry point at RFC5761 saying that it provides clarification on using
> the pt type numbers in different cases.

I do not believe that the registry table format allows us to express
well the difference between the RTCP-mux case and the non-RTCP-mux
case.  I believe that we should add RFC 5761 as the *primary*
reference for this registry.  As a conservative choice, the PTs 64-95
can be marked as "reserved"; the careful reader of RFC 5761 can tell
that in the non-RTCP-mux case, there is no danger that the endpoints
will confuse those PTs with RTCP packets.

Dale