Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9751.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Magnus Westerlund | ||
| Last updated | 2024-10-17 (Latest revision 2024-10-07) | ||
| Replaces | draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Early review
(of
-02)
by Elwyn Davies
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Dr. Bernard D. Aboba | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2024-09-19 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9751 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 4 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | ||
| Send notices to | bernard.aboba@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-04
AVTCORE M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 8088 (if approved) 7 October 2024
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 10 April 2025
Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-04
Abstract
It has been observed that specifications of new Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) payload formats often forget to specify registration
of the format's media type in the IANA registry "RTP Payload Formats
Media Types" as recommended by RFC 8088. 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.
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 10 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 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 10 April 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
It has been observed that specifications of new Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) payload formats often forget to specify registration
of the format's media type in the IANA registry "RTP Payload Formats
Media Types" [RTP-FORMATS] as recommended by [RFC8088]. 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 10 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 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 usages, 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 mentioned.
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 in its section
on IANA Considerations (Section 7.4) 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 10 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 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 in the Media Types registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml)."
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].
Westerlund Expires 10 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 2024
+=============+==========+===========+==========+==================+
| Media Type | Sub Type | Clock | Channels | Reference |
| | | Rate (Hz) | (audio) | |
+=============+==========+===========+==========+==================+
| application | flexfec | | | RFC8627 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | EVRCNW | 16000 | | RFC6884 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | EVRCNW0 | 16000 | | RFC6884 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | EVRCNW1 | 16000 | | RFC6884 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | aptx | | | RFC7310 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | opus | 48000 | | RFC7587 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | G711-0 | | | RFC7650 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| audio | flexfec | | | RFC8627 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| text | flexfec | | | RFC8627 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| text | ttml+xml | | | RFC8759 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | VP8 | 90000 | | RFC7741 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | AV1 | 90000 | | [AV1-Media-Type] |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | HEVC | 90000 | | RFC7798 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | smpte291 | | | RFC8331 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | VVC | 90000 | | RFC9328 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | EVC | 90000 | | RFC9584 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
| video | flexfec | | | RFC8627 |
+-------------+----------+-----------+----------+------------------+
Table 1: Payload Types to Register in RTP Payload Format Media Types
IANA is requested to update the following RTP Payload types in the
"RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS].
Westerlund Expires 10 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 2024
+============+===========+=================+==========+===========+
| Media Type | Sub Type | Clock Rate (Hz) | Channels | Reference |
| | | | (audio) | |
+============+===========+=================+==========+===========+
| audio | MP4A-LATM | | | RFC6416 |
+------------+-----------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
| video | MP4V-ES | 90000 | | RFC6416 |
+------------+-----------+-----------------+----------+-----------+
Table 2: Payload Types to update 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 existing note for 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)."
In addition it is requested that the existing note of "RTP Payload
Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS] is changed in the
following way:
OLD: Registration procedures and a registration template can be found
in [RFC4855].
NEW: It was previously stated that registration procedures and a
registration template can be found in [RFC4855]. This is not
actually the case as discussed by [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.
6. References
6.1. 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>.
Westerlund Expires 10 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Close RTP Payload Formats Registry October 2024
[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>.
[AV1-Media-Type]
"IANA Media Type Entry for video/AV1", January 2021,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/AV1>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[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>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The author likes to thank Jonathan Lennox, Zaheduzzaman Sarker,
Bernard Aboba, Elwyn Davies, Wes Hardaker, and Hyunsik Yang for
review and editorial fixes.
Author's Address
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Westerlund Expires 10 April 2025 [Page 7]