[payload] Updated request to publish draft-ietf-payload-rfc4695-bis-00

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

I would like to update the response to 1.j. I forgot to mention the ABNF
defined in Appendix D.

The new write up is changed to

 

(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? 

 

Appendix D define the syntax for the RTP MIDI media type parameters in
Augmented Backus-Naur Form. The ABNF was tested using the BAP tool and
returned no errors

 

 

Thanks,

Roni Even

 

Document Shepherd Write-Up

  

(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. Considering that this document is an update to an
existing RFC addressing errata found in implementation the document Shepherd
feels that the review was satisfactory. 

 

  (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 report some comments and one warning which are OK.

The document does not change the current media subtype registration so there
was no need to review it by .

 

  (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? 

 

Appendix D define the syntax for the RTP MIDI media type parameters in
Augmented Backus-Naur Form. The ABNF was tested using the BAP tool and
returned no errors

 

  (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 memo describes a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload

   format for the MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) command

   language.  The format encodes all commands that may legally appear on a
MIDI 1.0 DIN cable.  The format is suitable for interactive

   applications (such as network musical performance) and content-

   delivery applications (such as file streaming).  The format may be

   used over unicast and multicast UDP and TCP, and it defines tools for
graceful recovery from packet loss.  Stream behavior, including the

   MIDI rendering method, may be customized during session setup.  The

   format also serves as a mode for the mpeg4-generic format, to support the
MPEG 4 Audio Object Types for General MIDI, Downloadable Sounds Level 2, and
Structured Audio."

 

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? 

     

The first version of the document came out in 2007 and the document was kept
alive in order to capture any errata that will be discovered. The authors
now feel that the implementations are stable and that it is time to publish
the update. 

 

 

 

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? 

 

There are existing implementations and this update for RFC 4695 is based on
issues that were found by implementers.