[AVT] Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 15:26 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 09D043A69E5 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:26:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.071
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 bST+7U8WEstB for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548233A683F for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oABFQp5c010092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:51 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:51 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:47 +0100
Thread-Topic: Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
Thread-Index: AcuBtNqz5H69X6QtTiiQeYTIjZiD5w==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E03AC9F@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Subject: [AVT] Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:26:24 -0000
I have requested publication for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02 as proposed standard. Following is the document shepherd writeup for this document. I draw your attention to one extra requirement inserted in the document as a result of the document shepherd review. (Diff can be seen at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02.txt ). The new requirement is in section 4.2 and states: Other methods, beyond the three methods listed above, are not compliant with this specification and SHOULD NOT be used. One other normative statement was removed as it was a duplicate of an earlier requirement. regards Keith --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02 " Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)" as proposed standard. (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 for this document is Keith Drage. The document shepherd has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. Document history: - draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-00 was submitted 14th April 2010 and expires 16th October 2011; - draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 5th May 2010 and expires 6th November 2011; - draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02 was submitted 24th May 2010 and expires 25th November 2011; - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-00 was submitted 17th June 2010 and expires 19th December 2011; - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 26th August 2010 and expires 27th February 2011; - draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 10th November 2010 and expires 14th May 2011; Call for adoption of baseline as WG item was made 4th June 2010 and acceptance declared 16th June 2010. Working group last call was initiated on -00 version on 4th August 2010 for completion 25th August 2010 as proposed standard. Reviews were received from Jonathan Lennox and Keith Drage. Prior to working group last call,.comments had been received from Qin Wu, Dan Wing, Colin Perkins, and Peter Musgrave. (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 has been adequately reviewed (see 1a above). This is a very simple document and numerous substantial comments would not be expected. (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? There are no such concerns from the document shepherd. (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. There are no concerns from the document shepherd from this perspective with the document. No IPR disclosures have been made against this document. (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? >From a reviewing perspective, the interest in this specific document has been relatively small, but it forms an essential part of draft-ietf-avt-rapid- acquisition-for-rtp which has been well and substantially reviewed. It is assumed that the interested parties in that document have also reviewed this document. (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 appeals or areas of conflict or discontent have been identified. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and 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? Version 2.12.05 of ID nits identifies no issues. No other formal reviews outside of the AVT working group are perceived as necessary for this document. (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]. The document does split normative and informative references. All the normative references have been reviewed and are correctly allocated as normative references. None of these normative references constitute a down reference. (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? There are no IANA considerations required in this document. It creates no new values of any parameter. (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? There is no formal language in the document. (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. 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? 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 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a persistent transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint. While the Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may change if a collision is detected, or when the RTP application is restarted, its RTCP CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP endpoints can be uniquely identified and associated with their RTP media streams. For proper functionality, RTCP CNAMEs should be unique within the participants of an RTP session. However, the existing guidelines for choosing the RTCP CNAME provided in the RTP standard are insufficient to achieve this uniqueness. This memo updates these guidelines to allow endpoints to choose unique RTCP CNAMEs. The document achieved consensus in the AVT working group.
- [AVT] Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)