Subject: [AVTCORE] FW: I-D Action: draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02.txt

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:00:01 +0000

Hi,folks:
We have made a minor update to draft-wu-avtcore-dyanmic-pt-usage
Based on comments we received so far.
The diff is:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02

The reasons to have such document are two:
a. We need a document to clarify how to update IANA registry for Dynamic payload type number allocation to reflect RFC5761.

b. We need a document to provide additional guidelines for Dynamic payload type usage as follows:

(1) New payload formats(e.g.,H.264,VP8) MUST use dynamic payload type number assignment. 
Each new payload format MUST be named as "encoding name" by a registered media subtype defined in the "RTP Payload Format media types" registry. 
The "encoding name" in the RTP payload type registry is also registered as a media subtype under the media type "audio" or "video" in the "RTP Payload Format media types" registry.

(2) Provide order for dynamic payload type number allocation
I. first use values in the range [96-127]for dynamic payload types
II. Then use codes below 96
O Unassigned payload type numbers [35-63] 
O Followed by [20-24], 27,[29-30].
O Use the reserved values 1,2,19 (see [RFC3551]for reserved values)
O And 64, 65 (see [RFC5761]for reserved value)if H.261 FIR or H.261 NACK is not used in the WebRTC context
  Warning:  potentially cause collisions with legacy use
O Override the static types[0, 3-18,25,26,28,31-34] and map encodings to these defined static payload type
   Warning: cause problems for applications that ignore the mapping in the signaling and assume a specific payload format
         based on the Payload Type

(3) In the case when multiplexing RTP and RTCP are not used, the range [66-95] is used
Caution: better to use the pt numbers that are not conflicting with the currently assigned RTCP values

Let us know if you think these reasons make sense.

Regards!
-Qin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Action: draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Guideline for dynamic payload type number usage policy
	Author(s)       : Qin Wu
                          Roni Even
                          Rachel Huang
	Filename        : draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2013-10-21

Abstract:
   The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
   (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
   Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
   AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based Feedback
   (RTP/SAVPF).  This document provides guidelines for payload type
   number usage policy when dynamic payload type allocation is used.
   Also this document updates closed IANA registry "RTP Payload types
   (PT) for standard audio and video encodings".

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt