Re: [AVT] Open issue on hdrext draft

[David R Oran <oran at cisco.com>]

On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:

> 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?
I would be happy with (a) or (b) with a mild preference for (b)  
because lack of any review often leads to duplication - essentially  
identical extensions with arbitrarily different syntax, and the  
consequent lost opportunities for interoperabiity.

Dave Oran.

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

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