MIME Type Registration for RTP Payload Format for H.224
draft-ietf-avt-mime-h224-05

IANA Last Call Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register the MIME media type application/h224 at the following location:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/
We understand this to be the only action.

[Ballot comment]
4.1.1.  Registration of MIME media type application/h224
  MIME media type name: application
  MIME subtype name: H224

The MIME subtype name should probably be "h224" instead of "H224" to be consistent with other uses in the document.

PROTO Write-up

1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and
do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the
IESG for publication?

Yes.

1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

It has received review, by key WG members in AVT. A Request for review
of the media type was sent to ietf-types@iana.org at the start of the WG
last call.

1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
it, etc. If your issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway, note
if you continue to have concerns.

No issues.

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?

Strong consensus from interested parties.

1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise what are they upset about.

No.

1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of
the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

1.h) Does the document a) split references into normative/
informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where
the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in
an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC
with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication
until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

References have been split. There are is a reference to a draft, however
that one is in the RFC-editor queue.

1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following
sections:


* Technical Summary

This memo specifies the Media Type (application/H224) used in for
example SDP to negotiate the usage of ITU H.224. H.224 include a far end
camera control protocol which is the primary interest to use H.224.
Procedures for negotiating both uni- and bi-directional sessions in SDP
Offer/Answer are specified.


* Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.


* Protocol Quality

This document has been reviewed by both AVT and the IETF-Types list.