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

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:27 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [payload] Issues in RTP Payload HOWTO(draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-01)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In the process of updating the I-D to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-01 I
> found some issues that I think should be discusses by the WG.
> 
> These issues have not be changed yet from prior version of the draft.
> 
> 1. Section 4.1.3 in the I-D discuss the WG draft names of the RTP
> payload formats. It recommends a form that is
> draft-ietf-wg-rtp-<desriptive-name>-<version>. Which made more sense in
> the old AVT when there was more need to separate payload formats from
> other drafts. In the payload WG I think we can remove the recommendation
> for "-rtp-" in the file name. Any one against?

I guess we can drop it as "wg" will be payload already.
 
> 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 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.
 
> 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?
 
> 3. The draft has an open issue that says:
> Should any procedure for the future when the Payload WG is closed be
> described?
> 
> I think we should remove this open issue and continue without specifying
> that procedure. The reason is that we can't really predict the situation
> when there no longer are a WG that is chartered for RTP payload formats
> development. Several possible reasons for that can occur, and based on
> the situation the procedures to handle that needs to be developed at
> that time. Any one having a different view?

Agreed. If payload shuts down, then I guess RAI will take care of it.
 
-acbegen (individual)

> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload