[avtext] publication request of draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr

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

(As WG cochair)

I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr.

The process now is that the AD looks at it and when he is happy, he puts it through IETF last call. Note that in the changes from -01 to -02 there have been some minor technical changes. People may want to look at those changes in preparing comments for IETF last call.


The shepherd writeup follows the end of this message.

Regards

Keith

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-03 
"Multicast Acquisition Report Block Type for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) 
Extended Reports (XRs)" 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-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr-00 was submitted 3rd March 
2009 and expired 4th September 2009;
-	draft-begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr-01 was submitted 13th May 2009 
and expired 14th November 2009;
-	draft-begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr-02 was submitted 10th August 
2009 and expired 11th February 2010;
-	draft-begen-avt-rapid-sync-rtcp-xr-03 was submitted 22nd October 
2009 and expired 25th April 2010;
-	draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-00 was submitted 16th 
February 2010 and expired 20th August 2010;
-	draft-ietf-avt-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-01 was submitted 20th May 
2010 and expired 21st November 2010;
-	with the creation of the AVTEXT working group from the ashes of AVT, 
the document moved to AVTEXT, and draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-
00 was submitted 5th March 2011 and expires 6th September 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-01 was submitted 30th 
April 2011 and expires 1st October 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-02 was submitted 6th 
April 2011 and expires 8th October 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avtext-multicast-acq-rtcp-xr-03 was submitted 11th 
April 2011 and expires 13th October 2011;

Call for adoption of baseline as WG item was made September 8th 2009 and 
acceptance declared 15th February 2010.

Working group last call was initiated on -01 version on 15th June 2010 
for completion 29th June 2010 as proposed standard. No reviews were 
received. The document was reviewed without comment by Roni Even.
Colin Perkins reviewed, and stated "don't like the encoding, or the 
ability to use private extensions, but the metrics look okay".
Prior to working group last call, comments had been received from 
Cullen Jennings, Tom van Caenegem. The document has since been reviewed 
by Magnus Westerlund, in addition to the document shepherd.

  (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). 

  (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 2.12.09 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? 

The IANA considerations have been reviewed, the registries are correctly 
identified. The document creates two new registries for which the policy has 
been appropriately defined.

  (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? 

One change to an SDP attribute has been defined in ABNF. This is an extension 
to the ABNF in RFC 3611. The ABNF has been validated by visual inspection.

  (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?

In most RTP-based multicast applications, the RTP source sends inter-
related data.  Due to this interdependency, randomly joining RTP 
receivers usually cannot start consuming the multicast data right after 
they join the session.  Thus, they often experience a random 
acquisition delay.  An RTP receiver can use one ore more different 
approaches to achieve rapid acquisition.  Yet, due to various factors, 
performance of the rapid acquisition methods usually varies.
Furthermore, in some cases the RTP receiver can (or be compelled to) do 
a simple multicast join.  For quality reporting, monitoring and 
diagnostics purposes, it is important to collect detailed information 
from the RTP receivers about their acquisition and presentation 
experiences.  This document addresses this issue by defining a new 
report block type, called Multicast Acquisition (MA) Report Block, 
within the framework of RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Reports 
(XR) (RFC 3611).  This document also defines the necessary signalling 
of the new MA report block type in the Session Description Protocol 
(SDP).


The document achieved consensus in the AVT working group.