[MMUSIC] Request for publication -- draft-ietf-mmusic-image-attributes-06.txt

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

   (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?

Tom Taylor is the Document Shepherd. I have read the document and
believe it is ready.

   (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?

No concerns. Video and AVT experts have commented on it.
Document history:
   - liaison received from 3GPP asking if MMUSIC is interested in work
     in this area, April, 2008
   - draft-johansson-mmusic-image-attributes-00.txt introduced to the
     list in May, 2008
   - comments by Roni Even, response by Johansson, resulting
     in -01 update, June 2008
   - comments by Colin Perkins, discussion between Kyunghun Jung,
     Randell Jesup, and Ingemar Johansson, plus discussion at
     Dublin meeting, July 2008
   - -02 version submitted, September 2008. Kyunghun Jung, one of the
     signatories of the 3GPP liaison statement, added as co-author.
   - 3GPP progress noted by Ingemar Johansson, October 2008
   - IETF 73 meeting discussion repeated to the list, November, 2008
   - initial submission as Mdraft-ietf-mmusic-image-attributes,
     February 2009
   - -01 version submitted, March 2009
   - discussion at IETF 74, March 2009
   - -02 version submitted, April 2009
   - confirmed that the draft meets 3GPP's needs, May 2009
   - extensive editorial review by J-F Mule, July 2009
   - layered coding issue reported to list by author, October, 2009
   - -03 version submitted with further work to be done, October, 2009
   - -04 version subitted, February 2010
   - errors noted by Dan Wing, April, 2010
   - formal WGLC announced, 26/04/2010
   - last call comments from Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Dan Wing,
     Charles Eckel, Tom Taylor
   - -05 version submitted, June 2010
   - ABNF error noted, -06 version submitted, June 2010

   (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?

No concerns.

   (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.

No concerns. No IPR disclosures.

   (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?

Solid consensus. More people than usual made WGLC comments.

   (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.

   (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?

The -06 version has some second-order idnits problems that the authors
have promised to fix. There is also an example in section 4.2.4 that
is inconsistent with the ABNF. This request for publication is being
submitted to move things along in the understanding that the process
allows for the necessary update at an appropriate stage.

   (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].

References OK. (Idnits complaints noted above.)

   (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?

IANA section OK. One media-level SDP attribute 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?

ABNF verified by BAP and inspection. SDP verified by 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

    This document proposes a new generic session set up attribute to make
    it possible to negotiate different image attributes such as image
    size.  A possible use case is to make it possible for a low-end hand-
    held terminal to display video without the need to rescale the image,
    something that may consume large amounts of memory and processing
    power.  The draft also helps to maintain an optimal bitrate for video
    as only the image size that is desired by the receiver is
    transmitted.

      Working Group Summary

    Work on this document was initiated to satisfy 3GPP requirements.
    It benefited from comments on and off the list before going to WGLC,
    and attracted a number of comments during WGLC.

      Document Quality

    3GPP confirmed that the emerging document met their requirements,
    and its content has been taken up into their specifications.