Early Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-02
review-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-02-genart-early-davies-2024-09-19-00

Early review requested from the General Area Review team
========================================================

Summary: The document covers the situation (cock up!) appropriately.  It is
essentially ready.  I have suggested that some additional modification of the
note in the IANA registry being shut down would be helpful.  There are also
half a dozen editorial nits.

Minor Suggestion

The IANA Registry affected by this document (RTP Payload Format Media Types)
references RFC 4855 and claims that it contains registration procedures and a
registration template.  This document correctly asserts that this is untrue. 
Perhaps this document should additionally ask  IANA to modify the reference to
[RFC4855], [RFC-TBD1] and replace the second para of the note as follows:

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 and
[RFC4855] has been updated by [RFC-TBD1].

END

This would be followed by the the text in this document starting "This registry
has been closed..."

Editorial Nits

Abstract, s1:  Specifications not being sentient beings (probably).... s/to
register themselves/ to specify registration of the format/

Abstract: s/"RTP Payload Formats Media Types"./"RTP Payload Formats Media
Types" created by RFC 8088./ (which will suppress IDNITS complaints about not
seeing RFC 8988 in the abstract/)

s1, para 1:  s/RTP payload formats/RTP payload formats created according to
[RFC8088]/

s1, para 2:  s/various signalling usage/its various signalling usages/

s3, para 1: s/mandates/mandates in its IANA Considerations (Section 7.4)/

s4, para 2 (just after Table 1): s/add the following to the note to the
registry:/add the following note to the registry:/