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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 23 Sep 2015, at 2:26, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On 09/23/2015 09:14 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>> On 23 Sep 2015, at 06:41, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/22/2015 11:00 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>>> Remind me?
>>> Suggested text (suggested in a way that was a bit hard to follow):
>>>
>>> "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."
>>> I’m all for separation of concerns.
>> Yes, that works for me.
>>
>> Colin
>>
> Ben, based on the set of threads until now - can we publish an updated
> draft with this single change without revisiting the IESG, or would 
> you
> prefer to handle this by an RFC Editor note?
>
> I don't think there are any other changes that we all agree on are
> improvements that matter.

Let's do the RFC Editor note.

Do I understand correctly that this replaces the "Payload Type" 
definition in section 4.1 in it's entirety? That is:

OLD:
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].
NEW:
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."
END:


Ben.