Subject: Re: [AVT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:11:34 +0200

On 13 Jul 2005, at 16:50, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Working  
> Group of the IETF.
>
>     Title        : MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats
>     Author(s)    : S. Casner, P. Hoschka
>     Filename    : draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt
>     Pages        : 41
>     Date        : 2005-7-13
>
>      This document defines the procedure to register RTP Payload  
> Formats
>      as audio, video or other MIME subtype names.  This is useful in a
>      text-based format or control protocol to identify the type of an
>      RTP transmission.  This document also registers all the RTP  
> payload
>      formats defined in the RTP Profile for Audio and Video  
> Conferences
>      as MIME subtypes.  Some of these may also be used for transfer
>      modes other than RTP.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-00.txt

This looks to be a good update, although clearly subject to change as  
the MIME types discussion progresses. A nit and a question:

- The nit: section 2.1, end of 1st paragraph "...including the RTP  
header
   or any payload-format header" -> "...or any RTP payload-format  
header"
   for clarity that the payload format header is part of RTP, not  
part of
   the media type.

- The question: would it make sense to split the rules for new MIME type
   registrations out into a separate draft from the updated  
registrations
   forms?

Colin

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:54:06 -0700 (PDT)

Colin,

>   header or any payload-format header" -> "...or any RTP
>   payload-format header" for clarity that the payload format header
>   is part of RTP, not part of the media type.

Good suggestion.

> - The question: would it make sense to split the rules for new MIME
>   type registrations out into a separate draft from the updated
>   registrations forms?

I thought of that as I was preparing the revision.  However, I decided
against it for a couple of reasons:

  - The registrations should probably be updated to conform to the new
    format requirements, so that means the whole document needs
    updating.

  - The text at the beginning makes a couple of forward references to
    the registrations as examples.

  - It's probably better to have the revised document obsolete 3555
    rather than update it, and to do that the revision needs to
    provide the equivalent content.

                                                        -- Steve

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:24:34 +0200

Steve,

On 5 Aug 2005, at 09:54, Stephen Casner wrote:
...
>     provide the equivalent content.

Okay, makes sense.

Colin