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

Hi,

[removing the MMUSIC list from the cc: to avoid cross-posting]

this seems to be the last email on this thread. Keith makes a good point
here. IANA registries are not supposed to replace RFCs. RFCs are the
actual specifications; IANA registries serve a different purpose. So,
adding a note to a registry or clarifying any potentially confusing
aspects of that registry is something we should do. However, we should
not try and overload this particular registry with too much info.

Keeping this in mind, please discuss the best way to address this issue.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 16/05/2013 8:54 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> payload mailing list
> payload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
> 