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 21 April 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 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]. 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 usages, 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.¶

The origins of the "RTP Payload Formats Media Types" registry, as referenced in [RTP-FORMATS], are unclear. The registry cites [RFC4855] as providing the instructions for its maintenance. However, upon reviewing RFC 4855, no text has been found that defines the registry's purpose and operational rules. Further attempts to trace the registry's creation have failed to uncover any references to its establishment. It is likely that the registry was created based on correspondence via email or at the request of an Area Director (AD). Consequently, there is no known existing specification for this registry that requires updating upon its closure.¶

2. Update to How To Write an RTP Payload Format

How to write an RTP Payload format [RFC8088] mandates in its section on IANA Considerations (Section 7.4) that RTP Payload formats shall register in RTP Payload Format media types. 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".¶

OLD:¶

"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)."¶

NEW:¶

"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 in the Media Types registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml)."¶

3. 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 existing note for the registry:¶

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)."¶

In addition, it is requested that the existing note of "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry [RTP-FORMATS] is changed in the following way:¶

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 as discussed by [RFC-TBD1].¶

RFC-Editor Note: Please replace RFC-TBD1 with the RFC number of this specification and then remove this note.¶

4. Security Considerations

This document has no security considerations as it defines an administrative rule change.¶

5. References

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

The author likes to thank Jonathan Lennox, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Bernard Aboba, Elwyn Davies, Wes Hardaker, Gunter Van de Velde, Éric Vyncke, Mahesh Jethanandani, and Hyunsik Yang for review and editorial fixes.¶

Author's Address