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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

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  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------