/(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?//
/

Proposed Standard. Title page indicates "Standards Track".

/(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:/

/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?/

/Personnel:/

/Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?/

*Technical Summary*

The document defines RTSP version 2.0 which obsoletes RTSP version 1.0
defined in RFC 2326.

The Real Time Streaming Protocol, or RTSP, is an application-level
protocol for setup and control of the delivery of data with real-time
properties. RTSP provides an extensible framework to enable controlled,
on-demand delivery of real-time data, such as audio and video. Sources
of data can include both live data feeds and stored clips. This
protocol is intended to control multiple data delivery sessions, provide
a means for choosing delivery channels such as UDP, multicast UDP and
TCP, and provide a means for choosing delivery mechanisms based upon RTP
(RFC 3550).

*Working Group Summary*

The document has been work in progress for an extended period of time
dating back to 2002. Earlier versions saw decent WG participation
however the later versions have primarily been driven by the document
authors with limited overall discussion in the group, especially towards
the end of the process. There are no known issues or major discussion
points, and there has been no indication of lack of consensus in the WG.

*Document Quality*

The document has been reviewed in detail several times after WGLC and in
preparation for the publication request and the authors have made
several updates as a result of those. The document is considered to be
of high quality at this point.

There is one known implementation of the specification, and many of the
extensions compared to RTSP 1.0 have been implemented separately as well.

A Media type review was done for "text/parameters". The review thread
can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html

*Personnel
*Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo

/(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./

I have performed detailed end-to-end review of the document twice. The
first review resulted in a number of clarifying updates, and the second
review revealed only minor issues, which have subsequently been
addressed by the authors.

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

Earlier versions of the document received some amount of WG attention,
however the document has seen little recent active review and
participation in the WG outside of the authors and the document
shepherd. Detailed reviews have been performed by the authors and the
document shepherd several times and the document is of high quality at
this point. As noted, due to the relatively limited number of people
having reviewed the latest version(s), the reviews have not been as
broad as we would like.

/(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 such additional review is believed to be needed (nor has one been
performed).

/(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./

There are no specific concerns or issued with the document at this point.

/(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?/

Each author has confirmed full conformance.

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

An IPR disclosure has been made on an earlier version of the document:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1189/

and an updated IPR disclosure reflecting subsequent changes in document
section numbers has been made as well:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2028/

The IPR was originally disclosed at IETF 76:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/minutes/mmusic.html

and also posted to the MMUSIC list subsequently:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg07815.html

There has been no further comments or discussion around the IPR.

Also note that an IPR disclosure was made (in 1997 ?) on an earlier
version of RTSP: http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/RTSP

/
(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?/

The document mostly represents the work of the authors and WG consensus
is primarily based on that as well. There are no known concerns from
anybody.

/(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 threat of appeal or other indication of discontent/
/

(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.

The document has been reviewed and had ID-nits run on it by two of the
authors and the shepherd. The draft previously resulted in a lot of
unused references in ID-nits, which appeared to be a shortcoming of
ID-nits as it didn't parse the whole draft for reference, only up to the
reference section. Thus all references that are only in the appendixes
were marked as unused. The authors have manually checked this on the -33
version and found them to be false alarms. Henrik was going to address
the issue and it appears to have been fixed as of the latest ID-nits
check run. ID-nits has a couple of false FQDN warnings as well.

The document has a normative reference to RFC 2818, which itself
(somewhat suprisingly) is an Informative RFC and hence causes a downref
issue. However, RFC 2818 is in the downref registry and hence should not
be a problem:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry

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

As mentioned above, the media type review (for "text/parameters") can be
found at:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html

The URI review during WG last call is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01567.html

The URI review discussion resulted in the addition of explicit calling out the changes to the scheme which could potentially result in issues.

/(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 such references.

(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.

There is a downward reference to RFC 2818 as noted above.
RFC 2818 is already listed in the downref registry:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry

/(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./

This document obsoletes RFC 2326 (RTSP 1.0). This is shown on the title
page and both listed and discussed in the abstract and introduction.

/(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)./

The document defines a number of new IANA registries and registers
values in these as well as a couple of existing ones. All the IANA
registries and registrations appear complete and correct.

/(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./

The document defines a number of new registries of which the following
require RFC 5226 Expert Review (or Specification Required with implied
Designated Expert review) as noted in the IANA considerations section of
the document:

- RTSP Headers (Section 22.4)
- Media Properties (Section 22.7)
- Notify-Reasons header (Section 22.8)
- Range header formats (Section 22.9)
- Terminate Reason: Redirect Reasons (Section 22.10.1)
- Terminate Reason: Terminate-Reasone header Parameters (Section 22.10.2)
- RTP-Info header parameters (Section 22.11)
- Seek-Style Policies (Section 22.12)
- Transport Header: Transport Protocol Specification (22.13.1)
- Transport Header: Transport Parameters (22.13.3)

The document authors are the expert reviewers with Magnus Westerlund as
the primary Designated Expert reviewer.

/(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./

All ABNF has been validated by Bill Fenner's ABNF parser.