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

The registry is not there to show how values are used.

It should concentrate on two issues:

-	Making sure the value is reserved so that it can not be reused for something else
-	Identifying where the user should go to find further information about that value.

Anything else should be in the RFCs. If there is lack of clarity as a result, that means spinning a new version of the RFC or filing a fix.

We cannot fix lack of clarity in the RFCs by playing with the IANA tables.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Dale R. Worley
> Sent: 16 May 2013 16:48
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; mmusic@ietf.org; payload@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Should we update the IANA registry to reflect RFC
> 5761?
> 
> > From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
> >
> > I am also concerned about putting in the registries the different case
> where
> > RTCP mux is used or not. I think the best we can do is add a general
> note in
> > the registry point at RFC5761 saying that it provides clarification on
> using
> > the pt type numbers in different cases.
> 
> I do not believe that the registry table format allows us to express
> well the difference between the RTCP-mux case and the non-RTCP-mux
> case.  I believe that we should add RFC 5761 as the *primary*
> reference for this registry.  As a conservative choice, the PTs 64-95
> can be marked as "reserved"; the careful reader of RFC 5761 can tell
> that in the non-RTCP-mux case, there is no danger that the endpoints
> will confuse those PTs with RTCP packets.
> 
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic