RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3047-bis-09

[Ballot comment]
Section 7 still says 'The new draft obsoletes RFC3047' - this needs to change in the final published version which will no longer be a draft

[Ballot comment]
The latest version addresses my SecDir review comments.

1 small nit in Section 6:

  Note that the appropriate mechanism to provide security to RTP and
  payloads following this memo may vary.  It is dependent on the
  application, the transport, and the signaling protocol employed.
  Therefore, a single mechanism is not sufficient, although if
  suitable, usage of the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
  [RFC3711] recommended.  Other mechanisms that may be used are IPsec
  [RFC4301] Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] (RTP over TCP);

"and" or "," is missing before Transport Layer Security.

  other alternatives may exist.

[Ballot discuss]
>  The new draft obsoletes RFC3047 adding the support for the
  Superwideband (14 Khz) audio support defined in annex C of the new
  revision of ITU-T G.722.1.

There is no indication about the backwards compatibility of this specification (I think that the word 'draft' must be replaced in the final version of the document) and RFC 3047. Will th epaylod format described here be accepted and correctly processed by RFC 3047 compatibe devices, excepting for Superwideband support? Are there any oth er operational implications of deploying devices that support the new format?

[Ballot discuss]
This is primarily a process discuss, but I believe the change proposed below would significantly improve the document.  Alexey Melnikov's secdir review has not received a response.  He
suggested expanding the first paragraph in the security considerations to provide more
background to a reader unfamiliar with RTP on the range of possible security mechanisms.

He has proposed text (from RFC 5404); I would like to know if the authors feel this suggestion
is innapropriate.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
change in the "Audio Media Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/

OLD:

audio
G7221 [RFC3047]

NEW:

audio
G7221 [RFC-avt-rfc3047-bis-08]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

(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?

Tom Taylor is the Document Shepherd. I have read this version
of the draft 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 has had solid review within the AVT Working Group.
Media types review was requested and xxxxxxxx

(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. No IPR disclosures have been posted.

(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?

Consensus appears to be solid.

(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 problem.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
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?

Media type review was requested 22/10/08. Mark Baker, a
regular reviewer, declared that the registration looks OK.
There has been no other comment.

The IDnits tool has one complaint, about an FQDN not
compliant with RFC 2606. This seems to be a false positive.
Not sure if it is the repeated reference to G722.1 or the
contact name in the media type registration that is misleading
the tool.

(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].

All OK.

(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?

IANA Considerations section exists. It consists of the
audio/G7221 media type re-registration.

(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?

Not applicable. SDP example fragment is valid by inspection.

(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
International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation G.722.1
is a wide-band audio codec. This document describes the payload
format for including G.722.1 generated bit streams within an RTP
packet. The document also describes the syntax and semantics of the
SDP parameters needed to support G.722.1 audio codec.

Working Group Summary
The G722.1 codec can change bit rate in mid-stream. Dealing
with this successfully was an issue for discussion during
WGLC. The resolution was to require each bit rate to have
its own payload type.

Document Quality
Magnus Westerlund performed the initial review of the
document. Aurelien Sollaud also provided careful reviews,
particularly during WGLC.

(end)