Re: [payload] New version of draft-ietf-payload-vp8

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 09/10/2015 03:28 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> The new text about the Payload Type in Section 4.1 says:
>
>   Payload type (PT):  In line with the policy in Section 3 of
>      [RFC3551], applications using the VP8 RTP payload profile MUST
>      assign a dynamic payload type number to be used in each RTP
>      session and provide a mechanism to indicate the mapping.  See
>      Section 6.2 for the mechanism to be used with the Session
>      Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566].
>
> This would be okay, except that RTP profiles that don’t derive from RFC 3551 could be defined. A better wording might be:
>
>   Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this
>   packet format is outside the scope of this document and will not be
>   specified here.  It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular
>   class of applications will assign a payload type for this encoding,
>   or if that is not done, then a payload type in the dynamic range
>   SHALL be chosen by means of an out-of-band signaling protocol. See
>   Section 6.2 for the mechanism to be used with the Session Description
>   Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566].
>
One question about this suggestion (from a general considerations
perspective): Is there any value at all in having this text in a payload
type registration?

What we want to say is that this document doesn't change any rules for
payload type registration - it's simply not relevant to this memo.

That would make the text shorter - we could stop after "will not be
specified here" in Colin's suggested text.

If the WG thinks the longer text has value, I'm happy to include it, but
I'm even happier if we can leave it out.




-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.