Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00

AVTCORE                                                    M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 8088 (if approved)                                 22 July 2024
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 23 January 2025

        Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
               draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-00

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.

   To resolve this situation this document performs the following.
   First it updates the registry to include known RTP payload formats at
   the time of writing.  Then it closes the IANA Registry for RTP
   Payload formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond
   instructing IANA to close this registry, the instructions to authors
   in RFC 8088 are updated to reflect this.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-
   registry/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the AVTCORE Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:avt@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/gloinul/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Westerlund               Expires 23 January 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     Close RTP Payload Formats Registry          July 2024

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 January 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Update to How To Write an RTP Payload Format  . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   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" [RTP-FORMATS].  In practice this has no real
   impact.  This registry is not used for any purpose other than to
   track which media types actually have RTP payload formats.  That
   purpose could be addressed through other means.

Westerlund               Expires 23 January 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     Close RTP Payload Formats Registry          July 2024

   The Media Types registry [MEDIA-TYPES] is the crucial registry to
   register any Media Type to establish the media type used to identify
   the format in various signalling usage, to avoid collisions, and to
   reference their specifications.

   To resolve this situation, this document performs the following
   actions.  First, it updates the registry to include known RTP payload
   formats at the time of writing.  Then, it closes the IANA Registry
   for RTP Payload Formats Media Types for future registration.  Beyond
   instructing IANA to close this registry, the instructions to authors
   in [RFC8088] are updated so that registration in the closed registry
   is no longer required.

   It is unclear how the "RTP Payload formats Media Types" [RTP-FORMATS]
   registry came into existence.  The registry references [RFC4855] as
   the instructions for this registry.  However, reviewing that RFC we
   have been unable to find any text that defines its purpose and rules.
   Further attempts to find how the registry was created have failed to
   find any reference to its creation.  It is likely this was created
   based on email or AD request.  Thus, there is no known existing
   specification for this registry that needs to be updated when closing
   the registry.

2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Update to How To Write an RTP Payload Format

   How to write an RTP Payload format [RFC8088] mandates that RTP
   Payload formats shall register in RTP Payload Format media types:

   "Since all RTP payload formats contain a media type specification,
   they also need an IANA Considerations section.  The media type name
   must be registered, and this is done by requesting that IANA register
   that media name.  When that registration request is written, it shall
   also be requested that the media type is included under the "RTP
   Payload Format media types" sub-registry of the RTP registry
   (http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters)."

   This paragraph is changed to the following:

Westerlund               Expires 23 January 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     Close RTP Payload Formats Registry          July 2024

   "Since all RTP payload formats contain a media type specification,
   they also need an IANA Considerations section.  The media type name
   must be registered, and this is done by requesting that IANA register
   that media name."

   Thus removing the need to register in the "RTP Payload Format media
   types".

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to add the following missing RTP Payload types to
   the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS].

    +=====+====+=======+==========+===================================+
    |Media|Sub | Clock | Channels | Reference                         |
    |Type |Type| Rate  | (audio)  |                                   |
    |     |    | (Hz)  |          |                                   |
    +=====+====+=======+==========+===================================+
    |video|VP8 | 90000 |          | RFC7741                           |
    +-----+----+-------+----------+-----------------------------------+
    |video|AV1 | 90000 |          | https://www.iana.org/assignments/ |
    |     |    |       |          | media-types/video/AV1             |
    +-----+----+-------+----------+-----------------------------------+
    |video|HEVC| 90000 |          | RFC7798                           |
    +-----+----+-------+----------+-----------------------------------+
    |video|VVC | 90000 |          | RFC9328                           |
    +-----+----+-------+----------+-----------------------------------+

       Table 1: Payload Types to Register in RTP Payload Format Media
                                   Types

   IANA is further requested to close the "RTP Payload Format Media
   Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS] for any further registrations.  IANA
   should add the following to the note to the registry:

   "This registry has been closed as it was considered redundant as all
   RTP Payload formats are part of the Media Types registry
   (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml).
   For further motivation see (RFC-TBD1)."

   RFC-Editor Note: Please replace RFC-TBD1 with the RFC number of this
   specification and then remove this note.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document has no security considerations as it defines an
   administrative rule change.

Westerlund               Expires 23 January 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     Close RTP Payload Formats Registry          July 2024

6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4855]  Casner, S., "Media Type Registration of RTP Payload
              Formats", RFC 4855, DOI 10.17487/RFC4855, February 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4855>.

   [RFC8088]  Westerlund, M., "How to Write an RTP Payload Format",
              RFC 8088, DOI 10.17487/RFC8088, May 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8088>.

   [RTP-FORMATS]
              "IANA's registry for RTP Payload Format Media Types",
              November 2023, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-
              parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml#rtp-parameters-2>.

   [MEDIA-TYPES]
              "IANA's registry for Media Types", November 2023,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-
              types.xhtml>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The author likes to thank Jonathan Lennox and Hyunsik Yang for review
   and editorial fixes.

Author's Address

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

Westerlund               Expires 23 January 2025                [Page 5]