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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 09/23/2015 02:30 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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:
>

Yes, that was what I intended to propose.

Thanks!