[payload] Request to publish draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-00
Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Fri, 06 May 2011 08:40 UTC
Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.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 B1FF4E06F5; Fri, 6 May 2011 01:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yhenr1u7o1WG; Fri, 6 May 2011 01:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC5AE0663; Fri, 6 May 2011 01:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKR00HE3MNGB7@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 06 May 2011 16:38:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKR00AFYMNFG2@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 06 May 2011 16:38:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-183-32-24.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.32.24]) by szxml11-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LKR006R6MMYMV@szxml11-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 06 May 2011 16:38:03 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 11:36:15 +0300
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, 'Robert Sparks' <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-id: <04c301cc0bc8$b24fca00$16ef5e00$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_CNlCbHFTEawsakt34vHxag)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcwLyKhr5Jd/2vfeT/Ks0fngJm6j6A==
Cc: payload@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [payload] Request to publish draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-00
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: Fri, 06 May 2011 08:40:17 -0000
Hi Robert, I'd like to request that draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-00, RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual Streams. I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the AVT / Payload working groups were given the opportunity to comment. The draft is documented in sufficient detail to meet the registration requirements, and doesn't conflict with other work in AVT/Payload. Accordingly, please consider it for publication. Thanks, Roni Even (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 Roni Even. I have reviewed the document, and believe it is ready 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 went through a Working Group last call and people had enough time to review it. There were comments in the WGLC at AVT at the time and they were addressed in this revision of the document. This document is an update to an existing RFC and the document Shepherd feels that the review was satisfactory. The document was re-submitted as draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-00 and is the same as draft-ietf-avt-rfc3016bis-02. (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 (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? This is an update to an existing payload specification. It has consensus of a few individual who reviewed the draft. (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 Checklist and idnits <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 idnits tool reports some comments which are OK. The media subtype registration was sent to review to ietf-types mailing list. (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 are split (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 consideration section exists and is inline with the body of the document. (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 such sections (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. "This document describes Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload formats for carrying each of MPEG-4 Audio and MPEG-4 Visual bitstreams without using MPEG-4 Systems. For the purpose of directly mapping MPEG-4 Audio/Visual bitstreams onto RTP packets, it provides specifications for the use of RTP header fields and also specifies fragmentation rules. It also provides specifications for Media Type registration and the use of Session Description Protocol (SDP). The audio payload format described in this document has some limitations for new system designs [RFC3640] is preferred." 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? No 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? The media type review was posted on April 28, 2011. The document updates RFC3016 to support existing implementations that comply with the specification in 3GPP PSS.