IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 247EE21F882A; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 9wX3OtTA-l6D; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7200D21F8605; Thu, 16 May 2013 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r4GHNIwd070721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 May 2013 12:23:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51951605.6030602@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:23:17 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.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> <201305161547.r4GFlt3X4878967@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <201305161547.r4GFlt3X4878967@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <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 17:23:31 -0000

On 5/16/13 10:47, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> My preference is to provide RFC 5761 as the primary reference for the 
> registry and to mark conservatively PTs 64 to 95 as "reserved". The 
> careful reader of RFC 5761 can determine that in the non-RTCP-mux case 
> that the endpoint will not confuse the endpoints, but that it may 
> confuse network diagnostic elements.

It can also frustrate attempts to gateway between a system that does 
multiplexing and one that does not.  I think we should treat them as 
off-limits for all uses, regardless of whether we're multiplexing RTCP 
over the same channel.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email