Magnus, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? Original: 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]. Perhaps: Often times, authors defining new Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload formats forget to specify registration of the format's media type in the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS] as recommended by [RFC8088]. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Is it correct that this document does not define "other means"? If yes, perhaps the text should indicate this is out of scope, as I expected this document to update the Media Types registry in some way to account for this information. Original (prior sentence included for context): 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. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We find this text a bit tough to follow. Please consider whether the suggested text is more clear. Original: 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. Perhaps It is crucial to register media types in the "Media Types" registry [MEDIA-TYPES] to identify the format in various signalling usages, avoid collisions, and reference the defining specifications. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update this text to be a list? In addition, may we add that this document has been listed as a reference in the registry (see the second bullet)? Original: 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. Perhaps: To resolve this situation, this document: * updates the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry to include known RTP payload formats at the time of writing. * closes the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry to future registrations and lists this RFC as a reference. * removes from [RFC8088] the instruction to register RTP payload formats in the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] What does "without affecting its status as part of an informational RFC" mean? Also, the second sentence is incomplete. Please clarify. Original: This paragraph is changed without affecting its status as part of an informational RFC. Thus removing the need to register in the "RTP Payload Format media types". Perhaps: The following paragraph is updated as shown below, thus removing the need for media types to be registered in the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the notes slightly. If they are accepted, we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly. Original: NEW: "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)." Current: NEW: | This registry has been closed; it was considered redundant | because all RTP payload formats are part of the [Media Types | registry] (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types). See RFC | 9751 for further details. Original: 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]. Current: NEW: | It was previously stated that registration procedures and a | registration template can be found in [RFC4855]. As documented in | RFC 9751, this is not the case. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Note that the reference to RFC 2119 has been removed as it was not cited in the document and the capitalized keywords were not used. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] We have used "payload format" (lowercase) when not referring to the registry name. We believe this matches the use in other RFCs defining RTP payload formats. Please let us know if any changes are needed. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Feb 24, 2025, at 10:03 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/02/24 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9751 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9751 (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-payload-registry-05) Title : Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry Author(s) : M. Westerlund WG Chair(s) : Dr. Bernard D. Aboba, Jonathan Lennox Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
