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

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Fri, 10 May 2013 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 CDAFC21F90BB; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 HSXRDTi15JvM; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C7D21F9012; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=583; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368220760; x=1369430360; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=kb+Rn7mtlFkEyhGGIoDTacP4zwoKlRLU4Si8UyXe1RE=; b=arlXtkXTXDBOFkendgWeq/v1lWxkQbRcardSPean1Q7MFxhDwjXSFRlU PSUVe4QoMWfc0C0kLDJUBqcbP/1lBWSayDyua79m+8hyPwexojLASybLM FseXNgFsitODc9ESb+UsZjDOSAwQE65PFUvOh5KLNe9fRlfFtY3OGgg9W Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFADhjjVGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABSgwfAVnwWdIIfAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIIhQQMiUCBA4Nh34GvUOOdQIxB4J0YQOoYYMPgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,651,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="208990655"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2013 21:19:15 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4ALJFpA027334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 May 2013 21:19:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.192]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 10 May 2013 16:19:15 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
Thread-Index: AQHOTcQG0FWtFMhXHUOIqYR0Ncup8g==
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:19:15 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1134DEF28@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.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>
In-Reply-To: <201304261820.r3QIKq913501941@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3D957E974AB28D4097794FEE7879B157@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "payload@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: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:19:25 -0000

> 
64-65 have been obsolete and given the lack of H.261 being used in deployments I think it is safe if they are in the secondary pool. 

I think they would be better to ref 

65	[RFC2032]
66	[RFC5484]

For the rest, I think it should be more like 

65	[RFC2032]
66	[RFC5484]
67	[RFC5450]

72	[RFC3550]
73	[RFC3550]
74	[RFC3550]
75	[RFC3550]
76	[RFC3550]

77	[RFC4585]
78	[RFC4585]

79	[RFC3611]
80	IEEE Std 1733TM-2011

Given how the next two are  used, bit hard to decide what the impact is when doing O/A 
81	[RFC5760] 
82	[RFC6284]