[AVT] Open issue on hdrext draft

[Tom Taylor <tom.taylor at rogers.com>]

Before the header extension draft can be approved we have to settle two or three 
points that have been raised after the document passed WGLC. One of them is the 
view of the Working Group regarding registration requirements.

Is it the Working Group's intention that:

(a) any SDO can standardize and register a new RTP header extension without IETF
review or consent; or

(b) all RTP header extensions require review and agreement by an IETF expert
before they can be registered; or

(c) all RTP header extensions require IETF consensus before they can be registered.

David Singer had a clear view on this question when he wrote the document in the 
first place. I should let him speak for himself, but his basic idea was to 
encourage registration as an alternative to hard-to-get-rid-of experimental 
identifiers, by making registration a simple process. His preference was thus 
toward alternative (a).

Last time we didn't ask the question in quite these stark terms, and only Magnus 
replied. It's hard to read a consensus from that. Would other people care to 
comment?

Tom Taylor

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt