Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-05

No additional comments, outside those that have already been highlighted...

Thanks for the work done in this document, let's indeed close a redundant registry (this is always dangerous to have duplicate/redundant pieces of information).

Like Gunter, I think that "informational" would have been enough pending an expert review, but I do not mind too much as the origin of this IANA registry is rather unclear indeed.

Strong suggestion to use the OLD / NEW format in section 3 (if only to be consistent with the end of section 4).

Please remove section 2 as no uppercase terms of BCP14 appears to be used in the I-D.

# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-05

Thank you for taking the comments and discuss into consideration

This document does not use RFC2119 keywords, but contains the RFC8174
boilerplate.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

"Abstract", paragraph 1
>    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.

s/to identified/to identify/

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

 * http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters

Section 4, paragraph 5
> er motivation see (RFC-TBD1)." In addition it is requested that the existing 
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "addition".

Thank you to Elwyn Davies for the GENART review.

I support Gunter's DISCUSS position, and support Eric's and Orie's comments.

no further comments than the ones raised.

Thank you for the document, as well as the information in the Shepherd Writeup.