Hi Magnus, As we prepare this document for publication (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9751.html and additional formats), a question about the opening sentence of the abstract: Is the following change acceptable? We find it more clear (i.e., to prevent misreading it as authors of (a) formats and (b) WG process).
Current: A number of authors defining RTP payload formats and the Working Group process have failed to ensure that the media types are registered in the IANA "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry as recommended by RFC 8088. To simplify the process and rely only on the "Media Types" registry, this document closes the RTP payload- specific registry. In addition, it updates the instruction in RFC 8088 to reflect this change. Perhaps: The working group process and authors of RTP payload formats have sometimes failed to ensure that the media types are registered in the IANA "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry as recommended by RFC 8088. To simplify the process and rely only on the "Media Types" registry, this document closes the RTP payload- specific registry. In addition, it updates the instruction in RFC 8088 to reflect this change. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
