[AVTCORE] request to publish draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Tue, 08 February 2011 08:20 UTC
Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3BE3A7003; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:20:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.700, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VDAVYEtX1Bjt; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076AD3A6CB7; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGA00GB4HTWG1@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:20:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGA00FZ5HTWSW@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:20:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-109-66-14-129.red.bezeqint.net [109.66.14.129]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LGA00CDOHTN38@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:20:20 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:16:07 +0200
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
To: 'Robert Sparks' <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Message-id: <011601cbc768$73dc3a50$5b94aef0$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_MCuP+dGUJ7XLZo/6IfTEGQ)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcvHaG3Mzoq83BbbTamaaMgN+TUBGQ==
Cc: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org, 'IETF AVTCore WG' <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: [AVTCORE] request to publish draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:20:37 -0000
Hi Robert, I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00, Port Mapping Between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions, be published as Standard Track RFC. I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the AVT / AVTCore working groups were given the opportunity to comment. The draft is required for RAMS, and doesn't conflict with other work in AVTCore. Accordingly, please consider it for publication. Thanks, Roni Even (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Roni Even. I have reviewed the document, and believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document is the result of an effort done by key WG members in order to address a problem encountered in RAMS (Rapid Acquisition for RTP) which was recognized as a general problem that requires a solution. The current approach reflects that consensus in the WG. It went through two Working Group last calls and people had enough time to review it. The document shepherd feels comfortable with the review it got. Note that the document started at AVT and was at -11 revision before it was moved to the new AVTCore WG. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No Concerns (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document has strong consensus for key members of the AVT/AVTCore WGs. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits?(See the Checklist and idnits <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> ).Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The idnits tool reports a comment which is not correct about the latest version of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp which is 17 and not 16. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References are split. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames which is in the RFC Editor queue. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA consideration section exists and is inline with the body of the document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No such sections (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. "This document presents a port mapping solution that allows RTP receivers to choose their own ports for an auxiliary unicast session in RTP applications using both unicast and multicast services. The solution provides protection against denial-of-service or packet amplification attacks that could be used to cause one or more RTP packets to be sent to a victim client." Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was a discussion if to use a token or cookie for the solution. The initial solution was based on a cookie but after a technical discussion in IETF78 and mailing list call for consensus the token based solution was selected. There was a consensus to use this approach. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The document shepherd is not aware of current implementations but the vendors of RAMS solution will support