Closing the RTP Payload Format Media Types IANA Registry

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

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 27 March 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

It has been observed that specifications of new RTP payload formats often forget to register themselves in the IANA registry "RTP Payload formats Media Types" [RTP-FORMATS]. 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.¶

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 usage, 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 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:¶

"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."¶

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].¶

IANA is requested to update the following RTP Payload types in the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS].¶

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 note to 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)."¶

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

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

The author likes to thank Jonathan Lennox, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Hyunsik Yang for review and editorial fixes.¶

Author's Address