[payload] Publication request for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02.txt
"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 17:45 UTC
Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F2F11E80AD; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:45:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.900, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 g-yVDFNOwWXH; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B71B11E809A; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:45:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; l=7046; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326131123; x=1327340723; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to:cc; bh=GIYHnkz8R/TI5DN3hW5xbcFzKuxiae4Jlx0sC23ixhA=; b=mjEq4NH/dF2JTN1jafrzuT6ZvkL3g5DtC1kV7REvk6hOZeK4asr/gdv9 ks55oH7ZhhPhGNpgvs24yOhpgAsRFHzMl1Qvektu6T/tO1aa3LUbYuPxJ v3XzzotUdJqQMYnScU5F6foTRDWAB2gUWF6O2xossW69QXxQUzQM3QTYB 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAOMmC0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABErFOBBYF0AQQSAR07DhIBKgYYB1cBBBsah2CXfQGeQIsuYwSIBjOfKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,480,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24494474"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2012 17:45:23 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q09HjN53029474; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:45:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:45:23 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:45:16 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D5410B0964B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication request for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02.txt
Thread-Index: AczO9GdI2CTP2ZXOQxOA5pXBlsVvPQ==
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2012 17:45:23.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[7661A850:01CCCEF6]
Cc: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv@tools.ietf.org, payload@ietf.org
Subject: [payload] Publication request for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02.txt
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:45:28 -0000
Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02.txt: (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 is Ali Begen. He has reviewed the document and believes it 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 document has been reviewed adequately by the WG members. The shepherd does not have concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (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. (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. 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? No objections have been raised and the reviewers were confident in their reviews. (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? Version idnits 2.12.12 of ID Nits identifies no issues except one comment (which is OK). (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. There is a normative reference to SMPTE336M, which is a spec produced by the SMPTE organization. This is not an RFC but it is already a produced spec. (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 registry is correctly identified. (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? No issues. (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 specifies the payload format for packetization of KLV (Key-Length-Value) Encoded Data, as defined by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in SMPTE 336M, into the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP). The document achieved consensus in the PAYLOAD working group.
- [payload] Publication request for draft-ietf-payl… Ali C. Begen (abegen)