[AVT] Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03 as proposed standard.

The writeup follows at the end of this mail.

-03 was produced as a result of this review. It contains two small changes. One reference changes from normative to informative. An additional sentence is introduced "Except where stated otherwise in this document, the rules of [RFC3550] apply." as RFC 3550 is currently a normative reference, and this text is only implied in the introduction.


regards

Keith

-----------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03 "RTP Control 
Protocol (RTCP) Port for Multicast Sessions" 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-rtcp-port-for-ssm-00 was submitted 22nd March 
2010 and expires 23rd September 2010;
-	draft-begen-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-01 was submitted 3rd April 2010 
and expires 5th October 2010;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-00 was submitted 16th June 2010 
and expires 18th December 2010;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-01 was submitted 3rd August 2010 
and expires 4th February 2010;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-02 was submitted 25th August 
2010 and expires 26th February 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-port-for-ssm-03 was submitted 25th October 
2010 and expires 28th April 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 -01 version on 4th August 2010 
for completion 25th August 2010 as proposed standard. The MMUSIC was 
also asked to review this version at the same time as working group 
last call as this document is substantially an SDP definition. Reviews 
were received from Keith Drage.

Prior to working group last call, the document received comments from 
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 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 (and indeed none 
previously in the area of SSM).

  (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? 

An IANA considerations section is included and the sole IANA registration, the 
registration of a new SDP attribute, has been verified against the registration 
requirements of RFC 4566.

  (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? 

The only formal language is contained in one line of ABNF. This has been 
verified manually by the document shepherd.

  (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 Session Description Protocol (SDP) has an attribute that allows RTP 
applications to specify an address and a port associated with the RTP 
Control Protocol (RTCP) traffic.  In RTP-based source-specific 
multicast (SSM) sessions, the same attribute is used to designate the 
address and the RTCP port of the Feedback Target in the SDP description.  
However, the RTCP port associated with the SSM session itself cannot be 
specified by the same attribute to avoid ambiguity, and thus, is 
required to be derived from the "m=" line of the media description.  
Deriving the RTCP port from the "m=" line imposes an unnecessary 
restriction.  This document removes this restriction by introducing a 
new SDP attribute.

The document achieved consensus in the AVT working group.