Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 26 April 2013 18:22 UTC

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:20:52 -0400
Message-Id: <201304261820.r3QIKq913501941@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
In-reply-to: <517A23B4.3060801@ericsson.com> (magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com)
References: <201304251725.r3PHPqeV3429515@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D90F6DC561@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <51798419.7070103@nostrum.com> <517A23B4.3060801@ericsson.com>
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC 5761?
Precedence: list

> From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
> 
> Regarding the IANA, Mo you have correctly identified the registry as
> closed and Adam pointed to the relevant text. Is this level of
> indirection so problematic that this registry needs a Note to the effect?

(cleaning up my proposal)

I use the IANA registries as the reference for how the various number
spaces are managed.  The current final rows of the Payload Types table
read:

    35-71   Unassigned
    72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
    77-95   Unassigned
    96-127  dynamic                                 [RFC3551]

I find these to be problematic in several ways:

1) RFC 5761 is not mentioned at all, despite that it provides
important modifications of the governing text in RFC 3551.  This is a
practical problem:  Note that Adam quoted the text in RFC 3551, not
the text in RFC 5761, and the 3551 text is now incorrect.

2) The range that is reserved for RTCP avoidance is not specified
correctly.  It's true that the rest of the RTCP avoidance range is
marked "Unassigned", but in the context of RFC 3551, that suggests
that they can be used as a secondary dynamic assignment area.

3) The range 35-71 should be marked more clearly as the secondary
dynamic assignment area.

Because of this, I suggest the following changes to this registry:

1) The "Reference" section should be changed from "[RFC3551]" to
"[RFC5761][RFC3551]".

2) The final rows should be changed to

    35-63   Unassigned/secondary dynamic area       [RFC5761]
    64-71   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
    72-76   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC3551]
    77-95   Reserved for RTCP conflict avoidance    [RFC5761]
    96-127  Dynamic                                 [RFC3551]

Dale

[MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to re… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Justin Uberti
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Adam Roach
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Magnus Westerlund
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Harald Alvestrand
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Magnus Westerlund
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Roni Even
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Dale R. Worley
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Adam Roach
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry t… Roni Even