A nit that I noticed:
Table 1 in Section 4 leaves out EVC (RFC 9584).
Otherwise, the document looks good.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:51 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'Closing the
RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry'
<draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-02.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2024-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats
often forget to register themselves in the IANA registry "RTP Payload
Formats Media Types". In practice this has no real impact. One
reason is that the Media Types registry is the crucial registry to
register any Media Type to establish the media type used to
identified the format in various signaling usage.
This document resolves the situation by first updating the RTP
Payload Format Media Type registry to include all the known RTP
payload formats at the time of writing, then it closes this IANA
Registry for any future registration. Beyond instructing IANA to
close this registry, the instructions to authors in RFC 8088 are
updated to reflect this.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
rfc8088: How to Write an RTP Payload Format (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stream)
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
