[avtext] RAMs scenarios
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 09 March 2012 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avtext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F59B21F8716 for <avtext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:17:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzHpW4nMZeQm for <avtext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5B721E8058 for <avtext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q29IHJfv026907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <avtext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:17:26 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:17:26 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "avtext@ietf.org" <avtext@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:17:22 +0100
Thread-Topic: RAMs scenarios
Thread-Index: Acz+IN969OLhbETgQeimsBG5CRB4lg==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE224C36E5D@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 2.69 on 155.132.188.80
Subject: [avtext] RAMs scenarios
X-BeenThere: avtext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Extensions working group discussion list <avtext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avtext>
List-Post: <mailto:avtext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avtext>, <mailto:avtext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:17:32 -0000
(As WG cochair) I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03 as an informational RFC. You will notice that Ali recently (today) produced a new version of this document, which has some very minor editorial changes to it (i.e. none of them have any technical impact whatsoever). The writeup follows below. Regards Keith Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The document is being requested as an informational RFC. This document provides supporting informational text to RFC 6285 which is the related standards track document. It contains no normative material in its own right. While it contains example scenarios, none of these are a recommended solution so it is not considered a BCP. The cover page indicates: "Intended status: Informational". (2) 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. The Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions (RAMS) solution is a method based on RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) that enables an RTP receiver to rapidly acquire and start consuming the RTP multicast data. Upon a request from the RTP receiver, an auxiliary unicast RTP retransmission session is set up between a retransmission server and the RTP receiver, over which the reference information about the new multicast stream the RTP receiver is about to join is transmitted at an accelerated rate. This often precedes, but may also accompany, the multicast stream itself. When there is only one multicast stream to be acquired, the RAMS solution works in a straightforward manner. However, when there are two or more multicast streams to be acquired from the same or different multicast RTP sessions, care should be taken to configure each RAMS session appropriately. This document provides example scenarios and discusses how the RAMS solution could be used in such scenarios. 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? The document is a product of the AVTEXT working group. All controversial issues were issues of the preceding RAMS document already published in RFC 6285, and this document raised no new issues. 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? There are existing implementations of RFC 6285. This document merely gives some example scenarios of the usage of RFC 6285. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Keith Drage is the document shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the responsible area director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is ready for publication. Brief history of the document: - draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 1st October 2009 and expired 4th April 2009. - draft-begen-avt-rams-scenarios-01 was submitted 15th February 2011 and expired 19th August 2011. - draft-begen-avtext-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 2nd March 2011 and expired 3rd September 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-00 was submitted 10th June 2011 and expired 12th December 2011. - draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-01 was submitted 11th October 2011 and expires 13th April 2012. - draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-02 was submitted 17th January 2012 and expires 20th July 2012. - draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-03 was submitted 9th March 2012 and expires 10th September 2012. - A consensus call for adoption of the working group text was issued on 10th March 2011. - Prior to WGLC an extensive review of the document was performed by Tom Van Caenegam - WGLC was initiated on 22nd November 2011 to complete 13th December 2011 as an informational document on the -01 version of the document. During WGLC the document received review and comments from Colin Perkins, and Kevin Gross. All normal prepublication checks have been performed on the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The documents contains some SDP examples. While a formal SDP review has not been requested, the document has been reviewed by Colin Perkins and no issues were identified. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. There are no specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The author is not aware of any IPR disclosures that need to be made in relation to this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been made in respect of this document. It should be noted that there are IPR disclosures on RFC 6285 from Cisco, Microsoft, Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei. In order to implement RFC 6285 to perform the scenarios in this document, due attention may need to be made to those disclosures. I do not believe that necessitates a separate disclosure on this document. (9) 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? I believe the document has sufficient WG consensus behind it. Key individuals have reviewed it and identified that it is in alignment with RFC 6285 which is the related standards track document. (10) 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 publicly available.) No such objections have been identified. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No NITs have been identified. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document contains some example SDP usage. See answer to question (5). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? This is an informational document, containing no requirements material, and as such all references are essentially informational. The original RAMs RFC has been identified as normative, but this is primarily from the perspective that that document must be read in order to understand this document, rather than any usage in the true meaning of normative reference. (14) 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 plan for their completion? All references, both normative and informative, in this document, have been published already. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. This document has no downward references. It is an informational document referencing either standards track or informational RFCs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document contains no IANA requirements, and has no need to do so. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. This document contains no IANA requirements, and has no need to do so. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Apart from nit checking, no automated checks have been performed on this document. See answer to question (5) concerning the review of the SDP.
- [avtext] RAMs scenarios DRAGE, Keith (Keith)