[Fecframe] request for pub draft-ietf-rtp-raptor-04

[Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]>]

*,

The document draft-ietf-fecframe-rtp-raptor-04 is now ready for
publication. Please see the Document Shepherd Write-up below.

Thanks,
Greg

---

Document Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-rtp-raptor-04 as per RFC
4858, template dated September 17, 2008

(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?

I, Greg Shepherd as the document shepherd have personally reviewed
this document and believe it to be ready for forwarding to the IESG.

(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 had adequate review both from within and from outside
the FECFrame working group.

(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 concerns regarding the need for additional expanded review.

(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 with 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?

There is solid WG consensus for 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.)

There is no discontent.

(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?

Only two miscellaneous warnings  and one outdated reference which can
be addressed with editor's notes:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (November 25, 2010) is 46 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
     draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-02

(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].

Normative and informative references are split with two reference to
drafts that are currently in the editor's queue or will be soon.

(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?

Section 12 describes the IANA considerations, which refers to Section
5 for a comprehensive registration description. The document itself is
primarily a document of media registrations/definitions.

(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 xml code validates correctly

(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
	This document specifies an RTP payload format for Forward Error
Correction /  (FEC) repair data produced by the Raptor FEC schemes.
Raptor FEC schemes are specified for use with the IETF FEC Framework
which supports transport of repair data over both UDP and RTP. This
document specifies the payload format which is required for the use of
RTP to carry Raptor repair flows.

Working Group Summary
	There were no seriously contentious issues during the WG process.

Document Quality
	The Working Group feedback covered both the quality of the document
itself as well as the technical issues with the content of the
document.

Personal
	Document Shepherd - Greg Shepherd
	Responsible Area Director - David Harrington <[e-mail]>