Re: [AVT] Outstanding issues on the HDREXT draft

[Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>]

On 18 Feb 2008, at 08:04, Tom Taylor wrote:
> Dave Singer wrote:
>> At 22:04  -0500 17/02/08, Tom Taylor wrote:
> ...
>>> So the question we have to resolve here is the degree to which the
>>> IETF wishes to track (in the first instance) and review the
>>> specification of RTP header extensions.
>>
>> An absolute hard line on "if you want to register, then you are  
>> subject
>> to review" is appropriate, and the intent is that it's in the  
>> draft.  I
>> have no trouble adding  "and if your practice is public or likely to
>> encounter other implementations, then you SHOULD register", as well.
>> That's appropriate.
>>
> [PTT] This is turning the registration process upside down. IANA  
> registration is not a privilege to be paid for so much as a tool  
> for achieving specific objectives. There are two objectives in this  
> case: protection of the RTP architecture and avoidance of name  
> collision. I suspect protection of the architecture by coercing a  
> review of specifications is the more important of the two.

The community has been using unregistered RTP header extensions for  
over a decade now, without any significant issues. I'm less concerned  
about protecting the RTP architecture in this case, than I am about  
improving documentation, and avoiding namespace collisions.

Colin (not as chair)
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt