Re: [AVT] Outstanding issues on the HDREXT draft

[Dave Singer <singer at apple.com>]

OK, awaiting Mike on the 8+8 questions.

At 19:28  -0500 11/02/08, Tom Taylor wrote:
>>>Section 5 changes:
>>>------------------
>>>
>>>Third paragraph: retain the first sentence: "Each extension is 
>>>named by a URI." Move the rest of this paragraph and the next one 
>>>to section 9.1 (merging text suggested below).
>>
>>But 9.1 is IANA.  Whether or not the extension is *registered* it 
>>must be *named* by a URI., and the requirements on that URI are 
>>independent of INA.    Perhaps this is in the wrong place (it's not 
>>unique to SDP), but IANA isn't an improvement!
>
>[PTT] I believe this is the heart of a misalignment of intention 
>between you and the ADs. I believe their intention is that every 
>extension must be registered. Hence the required form of the URI 
>becomes a criterion for successful registration.

We can certainly say that every extension SHOULD be registered; it's 
clearly desirable.  We cannot, however, force  it, can we?  The spec. 
is external, the usage is external;  we have no leverage at all. 
What is the 'or else'?   Should I insert such a statement?  There are 
clearly periods of time when even an extension that will be 
registered, has not yet been, but may be in experimental use (indeed, 
I suggest that people trying things out before they're finalized is 
actually desirable).

Notwithstanding that, perhaps we need a section on the requirements 
of the label, for clarity independent of both the SDP and the IANA 
sections?

>>
>>>Retain the next paragraph, beginning: "An extension URI with the 
>>>same attributes ...".
>>>
>...
>>>
>>>Move the examples to follow the rest of the moved text in section 9.1.
>>
>>But the examples are examples of what the section is about (SDP) 
>>not what 9.1 is about (IANA considerations).
>
>[PTT] The examples I'm talking about are not the ones at the end of 
>the section, but these:
>
>    An example (this is only an example), where 'avt-example-metadata' is
>    the hypothetical name of a header extension, might be:
>
>    urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:avt-example-metadata
>
>    An example name not from the IETF (this is only an example) might be:
>
>    http://example.com/082005/ext.htm#example-metadata
>...

ah, these would also be ideal in a section on the label itself.

>
>>
>>The following is already in the formal declaration;  by 'name of a 
>>contact' I assume you mean a person's name.  Is that needed (or 
>>even desirable)?  People move around awfully fast.
>
>[PTT] Good point. What I'm thinking of is actually a contact 
>address. The organizations I'm used to dealing with (e.g. ITU-T) 
>generally have invariant addresses available.

Organizational contact information, sure.  No probs.
-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt