]> Ericsson

magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

ART AVTCORE 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". In practice this has no real impact. One reason is that the Media Types registry is the crucial registry to register any Media Type to establish the media type used to identified the format in various signaling usage. To resolve this situation this document performs the following. 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 RFC 8088 are updated that registration is no longer required in the closed registry. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the AVTCORE Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

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" . 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 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 are updated so that registration in the closed registry is no longer required. It is unclear how the "RTP Payload formats Media Types" registry came into existence. The registry references 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.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Update to How To Write an RTP Payload Format How to write an RTP Payload format 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".

IANA Considerations IANA is requested to add the following missing RTP Payload types to the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry . Payload Types to Register in RTP Payload Format Media Types

Media Type	Sub Type	Clock Rate (Hz)	Channels (audio)	Reference Reference
video	VP8	90000		RFC7741
video	AV1	90000		https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/AV1
video	HEVC	90000		RFC7798
video	VVC	90000		RFC9328

IANA is further requested to close the "RTP Payload Format Media Types" registry 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.

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

Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document specifies the procedure to register RTP payload formats as audio, video, or other media subtype names. This is useful in a text-based format description or control protocol to identify the type of an RTP transmission. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document contains information on how best to write an RTP payload format specification. It provides reading tips, design practices, and practical tips on how to produce an RTP payload format specification quickly and with good results. A template is also included with instructions. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.

Acknowledgments The author likes to thank Jonathan Lennox and Hyunsik Yang for review and editorial fixes.