Subject: RE: [AVT] 3 to last-call - RTP header extensions

From: Jonathan Lennox <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:19:09 -0800

Dave Singer wrote:
> At 7:26  -0800 8/11/06, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>> 
>> The usual practice for RFC-defined URIs used as protocol identifiers
>> (e.g. XML DTDs and namespaces) is to use URNs in the urn:ietf:params:
>> namespace.  See RFC 3553 and
>> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/params>. 
>> 
> 
> ah.  so we could register 'RFC' as a param itself? so we could end up
> with the form 
> 
> urn:ietf:params:rfc:1234:nice_extension
> 
> where 1234 is the RFC number defining the extension, and
> nice_extension is the name of one of the extensions in that RFC? 

I was actually envisioning an urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext: namespace, with
entries like urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset.

This has two advantages: with symbolic names you can tell by looking at the
URN what it refers to, and the URIs are stable if you revise an RFC.

There would then be an IANA registry page (analogous to
http://www.iana.org/assignments/cpim-headers) which implementors could use
to look up the standard for the names.

> Or is there already a node for RFCs that is parallel to 'params'?

There is (see RFC 2648) but I think the more symbolic name would be better.

-- 
Jonathan Lennox -- Layered Media
[email-masked]

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