[payload] Request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

 

Hi Robert,

I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07, RTP payload format
for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)

I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the  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 Payload. Accordingly, please consider it for publication.

 

Thanks,

Roni Even

 

 

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

This is a standard track RFC. 

It is an RTP payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec.

The title page header indicates it.

(2) 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 real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload   formats
to be used for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec
(EVRC-NW).  Three media type registrations are included for EVRC-NW RTP
payload formats.  In addition, a file format is specified for transport of
EVRC-NW speech data in storage mode applications such as e-mail.

Working Group Summary:

This document went through two working group last call. As a result of the
first one there were proposals to add some technical changes that were
consented in the second working group last call.

Document Quality:

This is a payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec and it was reviewed by a
couple of people in the payload working group.

Personnel:

Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is
Robert Sparks.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.


The shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in version -03 during
the WG last call. He has since reviewed the changes with each new version.
A second WG last call was done to verify all changes with the WG before
requesting publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed? 

This document got a good review for an RTP payload specification by people
who had interest in this work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP,
XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

No need for any such review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
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. 

No concerns

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, the shepherd has confirmed with all authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

There is one IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1766/ . The
payload mailing list was notified as well as the draft author. There were no
concerns.

(9) 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? 

A typical payload specification will be interesting to some of the WG
participants who have interest in using this codec with RTP. As such this
document had a review from individuals who have such interest and
contributed text that was added after the first WGLC.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

No real ID nits in this document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

The media subtype registration was reviewed by the shepherd and a request to
review was sent to ietf-type mailing list.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01598.html. No
comments.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? 

yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion? 

no

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure. 

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary. 

No change to other documents already published.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226). 

This document adds a new media subtype EVRC-NW. The document shepherd
verified that the registration template are according to RFC 4855 and
RFC4288 and that they are consistent with the body of the document. 

No new IANA registries are defined.

 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. 

No formal language.