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

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:26:48 +0200

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:39:35 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [payload] Issues in RTP Payload HOWTO(draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-01)
> 
> Hi,
> 

I guess we can drop it as "wg" will be payload already.
 
> My question to the WG. Should we continue to do this?

Why should not we continue?
 
> as a quick way of finding all the RTP payload format media types.

I personally find it useful.
 
> look in the main registry.

Which registry are you referring to?
 
> that time. Any one having a different view?

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

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

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:26:39 +0200

> Why should not we continue?

The main reason is to ensure that this registration actually happens.
There is formats missing from it.

> I personally find it useful.

Yes, I also find it a useful concept. But as it is incomplete I can't
rely on it.

> 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

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:42:23 +0200

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

-- 

Magnus Westerlund