Re: [payload] Issues in RTP Payload HOWTO(draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-01)

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1CB21F8A62 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rvjs3P4vcmIt for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54AD21F891D for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-ca-4e1d84a1cc5a
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A2.49.20773.1A48D1E4; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:42:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:42:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4E1D849F.7030704@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:42:23 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: payload@ietf.org
References: <4E1B6A98.9010101@ericsson.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540F69331A@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <4E1D56BF.50702@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1D56BF.50702@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [payload] Issues in RTP Payload HOWTO(draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-01)
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:42:30 -0000

To clarify as I have received one email pointing out that draft x do
update this registry despite what I wrote.

But, that is misunderstanding. There are two regestries.

The Media Types registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/index.html

This is the registry that ensure that there are no colliding media types
etc.

The registry I am discussing is the
"RTP Payload Format media types"
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters

This is a courtesy registry to track which of the media types that exist
in the previous registry that are defined for RTP usage.

I hope that helps setting what I want discussed.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2011-07-13 10:26, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> On 2011-07-12 00:39, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
>>  
>>> 2. Section 7.4 and the IANA template indicates that RTP payload format
>>> Media types shall be registered also in the RTP Payload Format media
>>> types found on page: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters
>>> My question to the WG. Should we continue to do this?
>>
>> Why should not we continue?
> 
> The main reason is to ensure that this registration actually happens.
> There is formats missing from it.
> 
>>  
>>> The registry is not needed for collision prevention. Its sole purpose is
>>> as a quick way of finding all the RTP payload format media types.
>>
>> I personally find it useful.
> 
> Yes, I also find it a useful concept. But as it is incomplete I can't
> rely on it.
> 
>>  
>>> If we think the later is good enough then the WG chairs needs to work to
>>> update that registry to be correct and complete as it currently are
>>> missing some format. They also need to ensure that this bit of procedure
>>> really is followed in all the payload formats going forward. The
>>> alternative I see it to declare the registry as discontinued and add a
>>> note that it will not any longer be maintained and that people have to
>>> look in the main registry.
>>
>> Which registry are you referring to?
> 
> "RTP Payload Format media types" found on page:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameter
> 
> Someone needs to ensure that this registry actually contains all the RTP
> payload types.
> 
> Secondly, which definitely will be the WG chairs job, is to ensure that
> the IANA sections do request that any future registrations actually do
> this.
> 
> If we look at the current set of PAYLOAD WG documents the status of this
> registration request is as follows when it comes to request of IANA to
> actually add or modify the "RTP Payload Format media types"
> 
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03: Don't request registration
> draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ipmr-15.txt: Don't request registration
> draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-01.txt: Doesn't update the registration
> draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis-01: Doesn't update the registration
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-g718-00: Don't request registration
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-01: Requests Registration!!!
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-mvc-00: Don't request registration
> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-sbc-00: Don't request registration
> draft-ietf-payload-vp8-01: Don't request registration
> 
> In other words, only one out of nine drafts actually ensures that their
> drafts get added to this registry.
> 
> That is why I raised this question, if we should continue to use it or
> declare it dead.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------