December 2009 - Ietf-types

Registration of media type application/ttaf+xml
by Philippe Le Hegaret 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

The following media type registration will be submitted to the IESG for review, approval, and registration with IANA (as per [1]). At this point, we would appreciate comments on this registration information. If you see any problems, please let us know. Regards, Philippe [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype [[ This appendix registers a new MIME media type, "application/ttaf+xml" in conformance with [1144]BCP 13 and [1145]W3CRegMedia. The information in this appendix is being submitted to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) for review, approval, and registration with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). [1144] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt [1145] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: ttaf+xml Required parameters: None. Optional parameters: The encoding of a TT AF document must be determined by the XML encoding declaration. This has identical semantics to the application/xml media type in the case where the charset parameter is omitted, as specified in [1146][XML Media], Sections 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11. The document profile of a TT AF document may be specified using an optional profile parameter, which, if specified, the value of which must adhere to the syntax and semantics of ttp:profile parameter defined by Section [1147]6.2.8 ttp:profile of the published specification. Encoding considerations: Same for application/xml. See [1148][XML Media], Section 3.2. Restrictions on usage: None. Security considerations: As with other XML types and as noted in [1149][XML Media] Section 10, repeated expansion of maliciously constructed XML entities can be used to consume large amounts of memory, which may cause XML processors in constrained environments to fail. In addition, because of the extensibility features for TT AF and of XML in general, it is possible that "application/ttaf+xml" may describe content that has security implications beyond those described here. However, if the processor follows only the normative semantics of the published specification, this content will be outside TT AF namespaces and may be ignored. Only in the case where the processor recognizes and processes the additional content, or where further processing of that content is dispatched to other processors, would security issues potentially arise. And in that case, they would fall outside the domain of this registration document. Interoperability considerations: The published specification describes processing semantics that dictate behavior that must be followed when dealing with, among other things, unrecognized elements and attributes, both in TT AF namespaces and in other namespaces. Because TT AF is extensible, conformant "application/ttaf+xml" processors must expect that content received is well-formed XML, but it cannot be guaranteed that the content is valid to a particular DTD or Schema or that the processor will recognize all of the elements and attributes in the document. Published specification: This media type registration is extracted from Appendix [1150]D Media Type Registration of the [1151]Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 - Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP) specification. [1151] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/ Additional information: None. Person & email address to contact for further information: Glenn Adams (public-tt(a)w3.org) Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller: The published specification is a work product of the World Wide Web Consortium's Timed Text (TT) Working Group. The W3C has change control over this specification. ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#media-type-registration

7 9

Registration of media type application/iptv_rtsp
by Miguel Angel Reina Ortega 21 Jan '10

21 Jan '10

Type name: application Subtype name: Standards tree - iptv_rtsp Required parameters: No parameters Optional parameters: No parameters Encoding considerations: 8 bit text (this media type may require encoding on transports not capable of handling 8 bit text) The iptv_rtsp media type is intended to be a media descriptor for an RTSP content control channel. The encoding of the RTSP protocol is specified in RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). Security considerations: The same security considerations apply as for the RTSP protocol, which is specified in RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). Interoperability considerations: Interoperability of the RTSP protocol is specified in RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). Published specification: ETSI TS 183 063 v2.4.2 (2009-06). Available at http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp Applications that use this media type: The iptv_rtsp media type is intended to be a media descriptor for an RTSP content control channel. An RTSP content control channel is established using SIP and the SDP offer/answer model as described in ETSI TS 183 063 Telecommunications and Internet Converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); IMS-based IPTV Stage 3 Specification", ETSI TS 183 063 v2.4.2 (2009-06). Additional information: Magic number(s): There is no single string that is always present. File extension(s): No specific file extension is recommended for this type. Macintosh file type code(s): No specific Macintosh file type codes are recommended for this type. Person & email address to contact for further information: MiguelAngel.ReinaOrtega(a)etsi.org<mailto:MiguelAngel.ReinaOrtega@etsi.org> on behalf of ETSI Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: No restrictions apply. Authors: the rapporteur (zhouzhipeng <zhouzp(a)HUAWEI.COM<mailto:zhouzp@HUAWEI.COM>>) The WG chairman (Raymond.forbes(a)ericsson.com<mailto:Raymond.forbes@ericsson.com>) Change controller: the ETSI TO (sonia.compans(a)etsi.org<mailto:sonia.compans@etsi.org>) ------------------------------------------- Miguel A. Reina Ortega Technical Expert Centre for Testing and Interoperability (CTI) tel: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 49 mob: +33 (0)6 76 73 60 99 web: http://www.etsi.org<http://www.etsi.org/>

2 1

Media types in draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme
by Alfred Hönes 21 Dec '09

21 Dec '09

I think it's correct and useful to keep full, self-cintained media type registration templates for all 4 types, because this ensures that the templates can be filed independently (and that's, more as a formality, what is required by RFC 4288). However, the "Applications that use this media type" clauses or the "Additional information" clauses should elaborate on when this particular media type shall be used, for instance in Section 5.1.1, when audio/~ should be used in favor of application/~ . Quickly skimming over the full draft, I did not see a paragraph of text discussing this applicability question, but if there's text containing such discussion and I have overlooked it, it could be referenced, or preferably summed up _and_ pointed to in the registration templates. Kind regards, Alfred Hönes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah(a)TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

1 0

Request to review type in draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme
by Magnus Westerlund 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

Hi, This document http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-fecframe-interleaved-fec-scheme-06.txt has been through an IETF last call. Unfortunately this hasn't been announced on this list either in WG last call or when the IETF last call started. Thus I would like a review before bringing this to the IESG. I would be thankful if the review could happen before the 7th of January. However, if a committed reviewer needs additional time due to the holidays that can be granted. But please tell me so that I can postpone the IESG review. Here is the media type template for the 4 types present in this document. 5.1. Media Type Registration This registration is done using the template defined in [RFC4288] and following the guidance provided in [RFC3555]. Note to the RFC Editor: In the following sections, please replace "XXXX" with the number of this document prior to publication as an RFC. 5.1.1. Registration of audio/1d-interleaved-parityfec Type name: audio Subtype name: 1d-interleaved-parityfec Required parameters: o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the rate of the protected source RTP stream. o L: Number of columns of the source block. L is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o D: Number of rows of the source block. D is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the corresponding repair packets. An FEC encoder processes a block of source packets and generates a number of repair packets, which are then transmitted within a certain duration. At the receiver, the FEC decoder tries to decode all the packets received within the repair window to recover the missing packets. Assuming that there is no issue of delay variation, the FEC decoder SHOULD NOT wait longer than the repair window since additional waiting would not help the recovery process. The size of the repair window is specified in microseconds. Optional parameters: None. Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC4288]) and contains binary data. Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX]. Interoperability considerations: None. Begen Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for Interleaved FEC December 2009 Published specification: [RFCXXXX]. Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media. Additional information: None. Person & email address to contact for further information: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group. Intended usage: COMMON. Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550]. Author: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com>. Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG. 5.1.2. Registration of video/1d-interleaved-parityfec Type name: video Subtype name: 1d-interleaved-parityfec Required parameters: o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the rate of the protected source RTP stream. o L: Number of columns of the source block. L is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o D: Number of rows of the source block. D is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the corresponding repair packets. An FEC encoder processes a block of source packets and generates a number of repair packets, which are then transmitted within a certain duration. At the receiver, the FEC decoder tries to decode all the packets received within the repair window to recover the missing packets. Assuming that there is no issue of delay variation, the FEC decoder SHOULD NOT wait longer than the repair window since additional waiting would not Begen Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for Interleaved FEC December 2009 help the recovery process. The size of the repair window is specified in microseconds. Optional parameters: None. Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC4288]) and contains binary data. Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX]. Interoperability considerations: None. Published specification: [RFCXXXX]. Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media. Additional information: None. Person & email address to contact for further information: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group. Intended usage: COMMON. Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550]. Author: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com>. Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG. 5.1.3. Registration of text/1d-interleaved-parityfec Type name: text Subtype name: 1d-interleaved-parityfec Required parameters: o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the rate of the protected source RTP stream. o L: Number of columns of the source block. L is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. Begen Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 17] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for Interleaved FEC December 2009 o D: Number of rows of the source block. D is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the corresponding repair packets. An FEC encoder processes a block of source packets and generates a number of repair packets, which are then transmitted within a certain duration. At the receiver, the FEC decoder tries to decode all the packets received within the repair window to recover the missing packets. Assuming that there is no issue of delay variation, the FEC decoder SHOULD NOT wait longer than the repair window since additional waiting would not help the recovery process. The size of the repair window is specified in microseconds. Optional parameters: None. Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC4288]) and contains binary data. Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX]. Interoperability considerations: None. Published specification: [RFCXXXX]. Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media. Additional information: None. Person & email address to contact for further information: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group. Intended usage: COMMON. Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550]. Author: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com>. Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG. 5.1.4. Registration of application/1d-interleaved-parityfec Type name: application Begen Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 18] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for Interleaved FEC December 2009 Subtype name: 1d-interleaved-parityfec Required parameters: o rate: The RTP timestamp (clock) rate. The rate SHALL be larger than 1000 Hz to provide sufficient resolution to RTCP operations. However, it is RECOMMENDED to select the rate that matches the rate of the protected source RTP stream. o L: Number of columns of the source block. L is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o D: Number of rows of the source block. D is a positive integer that is less than or equal to 255. o repair-window: The time that spans the source packets and the corresponding repair packets. An FEC encoder processes a block of source packets and generates a number of repair packets, which are then transmitted within a certain duration. At the receiver, the FEC decoder tries to decode all the packets received within the repair window to recover the missing packets. Assuming that there is no issue of delay variation, the FEC decoder SHOULD NOT wait longer than the repair window since additional waiting would not help the recovery process. The size of the repair window is specified in microseconds. Optional parameters: None. Encoding considerations: This media type is framed (See Section 4.8 in the template document [RFC4288]) and contains binary data. Security considerations: See Section 9 of [RFCXXXX]. Interoperability considerations: None. Published specification: [RFCXXXX]. Applications that use this media type: Multimedia applications that want to improve resiliency against packet loss by sending redundant data in addition to the source media. Additional information: None. Person & email address to contact for further information: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com> and IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group. Intended usage: COMMON. Begen Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 19] Internet-Draft RTP Payload Format for Interleaved FEC December 2009 Restriction on usage: This media type depends on RTP framing, and hence, is only defined for transport via RTP [RFC3550]. Author: Ali Begen <abegen(a)cisco.com>. Change controller: IETF Audio/Video Transport Working Group delegated from the IESG. Thanks Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund(a)ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------

2 2

review of audio media types for gsm-hr
by Roni Even 06 Dec '09

06 Dec '09

Hi, The AVT working group requests media type review for the gsm-hr media type defined in section 7.1 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-gsm-hr-02 . This draft is was in AVT working group last call. We would be grateful if any comments could be made by December 15th . Thanks, Roni Even (AVT co-chair)

1 0

re: [widgets] Media Type Registration for application/widget
by Marcos Caceres 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Hi, The W3C Web Apps WG sent a registration application for review [0] for W3C widgets [1] a month ago and we have not received any response. I'm not sure how the process works here (did I send the request to the wrong place or something?) but it would be nice to have a timeline or some sort of indication that our application is being reviewed. The spec has now progressed to CR but without having the registration it will likely block us from progressing to PR in January next year. Can you please let us know what is happening and what, if anything, the WG needs to do. Kind regards, Marcos [0] http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2009-October/002275.html [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

2 1