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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 03 May 2013 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 C428921F93FB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:04:25 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 rBTswjgCnvJA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720D821F8FF5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE3839E129 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:04:17 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksT4t2BInS6R for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:04:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B69F239E125 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:04:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5183A7BF.50903@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:04:15 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic@ietf.org
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 03 May 2013 12:04:25 -0000

I support this proposal.

On 04/26/2013 08:20 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
>>
>> Regarding the IANA, Mo you have correctly identified the registry as
>> closed and Adam pointed to the relevant text. Is this level of
>> indirection so problematic that this registry needs a Note to the effect?
> (cleaning up my proposal)
>
> I use the IANA registries as the reference for how the various number
> spaces are managed.  The current final rows of the Payload Types table
> read:
>
>      35-71   Unassigned
>      72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
>      77-95   Unassigned
>      96-127  dynamic                                 [RFC3551]
>
> I find these to be problematic in several ways:
>
> 1) RFC 5761 is not mentioned at all, despite that it provides
> important modifications of the governing text in RFC 3551.  This is a
> practical problem:  Note that Adam quoted the text in RFC 3551, not
> the text in RFC 5761, and the 3551 text is now incorrect.
>
> 2) The range that is reserved for RTCP avoidance is not specified
> correctly.  It's true that the rest of the RTCP avoidance range is
> marked "Unassigned", but in the context of RFC 3551, that suggests
> that they can be used as a secondary dynamic assignment area.
>
> 3) The range 35-71 should be marked more clearly as the secondary
> dynamic assignment area.
>
> Because of this, I suggest the following changes to this registry:
>
> 1) The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
> "[RFC5761][RFC3551]".
>
> 2) The final rows should be changed to
>
>      35-63   Unassigned/secondary dynamic area       [RFC5761]
>      64-71   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
>      72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
>      77-95   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
>      96-127  Dynamic                                 [RFC3551]
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic