[avtext] Publication requested for draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04

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

I have just requested publication of draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04

The proto writeup follows

Keith

Proto writeup for "A Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Header 
Extension for Client-to-Mixer Audio Level Indication", draft-ietf-
avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 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? 

Keith Drage is the document shepherd. The document has had extensive 
review and is ready for forwarding to the IESG 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 history of the document is as follows:

-	draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-00 was submitted 17th 
June 2009 and expired 19th December 2009.
-	draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-00 was submitted 20th 
October 2009 and expired 23rd April 2010.
-	draft-lennox-avt-rtp-audio-level-exthdr-02 was submitted 11th 
July 2010 and expired 12th January 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-00 was 
submitted 18th February 2011 and expires 22nd August 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-01 was 
submitted 14th March 2011 and expires 15th September 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-02 was 
submitted 2nd June 2011 and expires 4th December 2011.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-03 was 
submitted 5th July 2011 and expires 6th January 2012.
-	draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level-04 was 
submitted 27th August 2011 and expires 28th February 2012.

The document was originally targetted at the AVT working group, and 
with the split of the charter of AVT into 4 new groups, fell within 
the scope of the AVTEXT working group.

The document was adopted by the AVTEXT working group on 14th February 
2011. WGLC was initiated 6th July 2011 to complete 20th July 2011 on -
03 version as proposed standard. Working group last call comments 
were received from Keith Drage, Magnus Westerlund, Kevin Fleming. 
Indications were received from the following that they had read the 
document and that it was ready to go: Stephan Wenger, John Elwell, 
Peter Musgrave. An indication was also taken in the AVTEXT face to 
face meeting and 10 - 15 people identified they had read and were OK 
with the WGLC version.

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of review.

  (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? 

The document contains an SDP extension that has been reviewed by 
experts from the MMUSIC working group (specifically Miguel Garcia).

  (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 specific concerns or issues with this document.

No IPR disclosures have been made against this document or its 
predecessors.

  (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 WG concensus and appears to be well supported.

  (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.) 

There has been no issues for appeal or otherwise discontent 
identified during the discussion. 

  (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? 

Apart from the MMUSIC review already mentioned, no other external 
reviews have been identified as necessary for this document.

The document was checked with idnits 2.12.12 and no issues were 
identified. There is one outdated reference to a document which is 
proceeding in parallel to 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 has split its references into normative and informative 
references, and these references have been checked to be in the 
appropriate group.

There is an informative reference to an unpublished document, draft-
lennox-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext, and the final publication 
of this document should be held until this document receives an RFC 
number. Similarly draft-ietf-avtext-client-to-mixer-audio-level 
should also receive an RFC number before this document is published. 
Publication should not wait for other unpublished documents.

  (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 document makes one entry to the RTP Compact Header Extensions 
subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters 
registry and this is defined in the document in an IANA 
considerations section. The registration requirement for this 
registry is Expert Review which may be considered to have already 
occurred, AVTEXT and MMUSIC being the appropriate expert working 
groups.

  (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 document contains no formal language to validate.

  (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? 

This document defines a mechanism by which packets of Real-Time 
Transport Protocol (RTP) audio streams can indicate, in an RTP header 
extension, the audio level of the audio sample carried in the RTP 
packet.  In large conferences, this can reduce the load on an audio 
mixer or other middlebox which wants to forward only a few of the 
loudest audio streams, without requiring it to decode and measure 
every stream that is received.

The document is a product of the AVTEXT working group.

Vidyo has a working implementation of this internet-draft.