A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3119bis-05

[Ballot comment]
Based on Gen-ART Review by Pasi Eronen.

  It would be useful to have a short appendix listing explicitly
  the bugs that were present in RFC 3119 and corrected in this
  document.

[Ballot comment]
I am missing the Congestion Consideration section. I think this document could greatly benefit from some discussion on the possibility to change the bit-rate during an ongoing session.

In Section 9, on could be more explicit that the timestamp rate really must be 90 kHz.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 8:

This registration update has not been reviewed on ietf-types.

In addition it is not following the latest agreement on how fields should be filled in for an RTP payload format.

Encoding Consideration: Missing to say this is framed.

The text that is currently there should instead be written in the "Restriction on Usage"

The change controller field is also not the so far agreed on.

Section 9.

I think this text should be updated to mention offer/answer also. For once this is really simple as the payload format lacks parameters that needs to be discussed. But a pointer that the basic rules in RFC 3261 applies should be included.

IANA Last Call questions/comments:

IESG Note: Expert Review Required

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

audio
mpa-robust [RFC-avt-rfc3119bis-05]

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

Questions: Should you register a new payload type for this usage? How
do you maintain interoperability if you don't have a common payload
type number?

Does "mpa-robust" need to be registered in the SDP parameters
registry?

PROTO 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 Colin Perkins. He has reviewed the draft,
and believes 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 adequate review.

(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, and no disclosed IPR.

(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?

There is consensus that the mistakes in RFC 3119 should be corrected.

(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
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?

The idnits tools complains about minor formatting issues, and about
possible downrefs (non-RFCs: in this case, the ISO MPEG
specification). Media type review is not needed since the media type
registration is unchanged from RFC 3119.

(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 have been split. There are no normative downrefs.

(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 [RFC2434]. 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, and matches that in RFC 3119.

(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?

The included pseudo-code has been corrected compared to RFC 3119.
Otherwise not applicable.

(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 document describes a RTP (Real-Time Protocol) payload
format for
transporting MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) 1 or 2, layer III
audio (commonly known as "MP3"). This format is an alternative to
that described in RFC 2250, and performs better if there is packet
loss. (This document updates (and obsoletes) RFC 3119, correcting
typographical errors in the "SDP usage" section and pseudo-code
appendices.)


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 working group agrees that the corrections to RFC 3119 are
needed.

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 known implementations of this payload format.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is
the
Responsible Area Director?

Colin Perkins is the document shepherd.