Support for Reduced-Size Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities and Consequences
draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-09

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "att-field (media level only)" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters

Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
att-field (media level only)
rtcp-rsize [RFC-avt-rtcp-non-compound-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 Document Shepherd. I have reviewed this version of the document. I
believe that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG 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 thorough discussion and review from WG members. Aspects
relating to SDP have been presented to MMUSIC for comment.

(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 personal concerns. No IPR disclosures found.

(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?

When the initial proposals were presented (end of 2006), they provoked
considerable concern and discussion because they violated current RFC 3550
rules. Over the two years since, agreement has been reached on the acceptable
modifications to RFC 3550 rules and the concerns that have to be documented
along with them. The current document has strong WG consensus.

(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?

OK, except that boilerplate is not the latest.

(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].

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?

OK

(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?

(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
This memo discusses benefits and issues that arise when allowing RTCP
packets to be transmitted with reduced size. The size can be reduced
if the rules on how to create compound packets outlined in RFC3550
are removed or changed. Based on that analysis this memo defines
certain changes to the rules to allow feedback messages to be sent as
reduced-size RTCP packets under certain conditions when using the RTP
AVPF profile (RFC 4585). This document updates [RFC3550], [RFC3711]
and [RFC4585].



Working Group Summary
When the initial proposals for reduced-size RTCP reports were presented (end of
2006), they provoked considerable concern and discussion because they violated
current RFC 3550 rules. Over the two years since, agreement has been reached on
the acceptable modifications to RFC 3550 rules and the concerns that have to be
documented along with them. The current document has strong WG consensus.

Document Quality
Colin Perkins and Randell Jesup provided oversight and insight throughout the
evolution of this document.