RTP Payload Format for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-03-15
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-03-04
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-02-13
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-01-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-01-24
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-01-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-01-23
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-01-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-01-22
|
10 | Robert Sparks | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-01-21
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] The -10 version addresses my concern about which version of the 3GPP2 document you're citing. And IANA has already recorded that they will … [Ballot comment] The -10 version addresses my concern about which version of the 3GPP2 document you're citing. And IANA has already recorded that they will use this RFC as the registered reference for the audio media types, so my other DISCUSS point is covered. But (and this is non-blocking) I would still like to see a URL: in Section 17.1, reference [4], can you please add a URL for the 3GPP2 document? Here's where I found it: http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/C.S0014-D_v3.0_EVRC.pdf If you need xml2rfc code to do this, I can help; send me email. Or it can be put in as an RFC Editor note, and the RFC Editor will take care of it. |
2013-01-21
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-01-20
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-01-20
|
10 | Zheng Fang | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-10.txt |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Peter Yee. |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] -- Sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 -- Published specification: The EVRC-NW vocoder is specified in 3GPP2 C.S0014-D. I can't find the … [Ballot discuss] -- Sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 -- Published specification: The EVRC-NW vocoder is specified in 3GPP2 C.S0014-D. I can't find the string "EVRC-NW" anywhere in the 3GPP2 document. Where in that document is the EVRC-NW vocoder specified? There is no reference to *this* RFC in the registrations for EVRCNW0 and EVRCNW1. Is that really correct? If someone's trying to understand what audio/EVRCNW0 is, where, exactly, do they need to look? |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] In Section 17.1, reference [4], can you please add a URL for the 3GPP2 document? Here's where I found it: http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/C.S0014-D_v1.0_EVRC.pdf |
2012-12-20
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Question off the top: Are there no implementations using this now? None were indicated in the shepherd writeup. Section 5: The RTP … [Ballot comment] Question off the top: Are there no implementations using this now? None were indicated in the shepherd writeup. Section 5: The RTP header marker bit (M) SHALL be set to 1 if the first frame carried in the packet contains a speech frame which is the first in a talkspurt. For all other packets the marker bit SHALL be set to zero (M=0). Those SHALLs are meaningless. They should be changed to "will". Section 6: 1. the mode change request field in the interleaved/bundled packet format MUST be interpreted according to the definition of the RATE_REDUC parameter as defined in EVRC-NW [4]. I don't understand what protocol requirement or interoperability consideration is contained in "MUST be interpreted". Please explain. 2. the mode change request field in the interleaved/bundled packet format SHOULD be honored by an EVRCNW encoding end point in an one-to-one session with a dedicated EVRCNW decoding end point such as in a two-party call or in a conference leg. What would it mean to violate the SHOULD? I don't understand what this means. Section 7: Congestion control for RTP SHALL be used in accordance with RFC 3550 [5], and with any applicable RTP profile, e.g., RFC 3551 [7]. That SHALL doesn't seem useful. Should this simply be, "Congestion control for RTP is discussed in RFC 3550, and in applicable RTP profiles, e.g., RFC 3551. This document does not change those considerations."? Section 9: Generally, 2119 language in IANA Considerations is a problem. If it's a protocol requirement, put that in the body of the protocol; don't hide it in IANA Considerations. If it's instructions to IANA, that's not an appropriate use. So, for example: 9.1.1: maxinterleave: Maximum number for interleaving length (field LLL in the Interleaving Octet)[0..7]. The interleaving lengths used in the entire session MUST NOT exceed this maximum value. If not signaled, the maxinterleave length MUST be 5. You are defining maxinterleave. I presume the limitations on length are explained in [4]. Just make a reference to [4]; don't say MUST/MUST NOT here. When this media type is used in the context of transfer over RTP, the RTP payload format specified in Section 4.1 of RFC 3558 [6] SHALL be used. In all other contexts, the file format defined in Section 8 of RFC XXXX SHALL be used. See Section 6 of RFC XXXX for details for EVRC-NW. Instead: This media type can be used with the file format defined in section 8 of RFC XXXX is used in contexts other than RTP. In context of transfers over RTP, the RTP payload format specified in section 4.1 of RFC 3558 is used for this media type. If the restriction in usage needs to be called out for interoperability purposes, that belongs elsewhere. |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 6.1: What is the MMM field? Seems to be missing a reference there. - section 16: I would encourage you to expand … [Ballot comment] - 6.1: What is the MMM field? Seems to be missing a reference there. - section 16: I would encourage you to expand on the reference to rfc 6562 to say that this codec, like all variable bit rate codecs, might expose speech even if the flows are strongly encrypted. |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-12-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-12-18
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-12-18
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-12-18
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-12-17
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-12-17
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-12-17
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Please consider the editorial suggestions in the Gen-ART Review by Peter Yee on 12-Dec-2012. The review can be found here: … [Ballot comment] Please consider the editorial suggestions in the Gen-ART Review by Peter Yee on 12-Dec-2012. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07985.html |
2012-12-17
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-12-13
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2012-12-13
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2012-12-13
|
09 | Zheng Fang | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-09.txt |
2012-12-13
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Robert Sparks | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-12-20 |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Ballot has been issued |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-12-12
|
08 | Peter Yee | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. |
2012-12-11
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-12-07
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08 and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Audio Media types registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/index.html three new Audio Media Types will be registered as follows: EVRCNW [ RFC-to-be ] EVRCNW0 [ RFC-to-be ] EVRCNW1 [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. |
2012-11-29
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2012-11-29
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads WG (payload) to consider the following document: - 'RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload formats to be used for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW). Three media type registrations are included for EVRC-NW RTP payload formats. In addition, a file format is specified for transport of EVRC-NW speech data in storage mode applications such as e-mail. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1766/ |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Last call was requested |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Robert Sparks | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-11-19
|
08 | Roni Even | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2012-11-19
|
08 | Roni Even | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-11-19
|
08 | Roni Even | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2012-11-19
|
08 | Roni Even | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-11-15
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-11-15
|
08 | Zheng Fang | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08.txt |
2012-10-23
|
07 | Robert Sparks | AD review at |
2012-10-23
|
07 | Robert Sparks | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested |
2012-10-16
|
07 | Robert Sparks | ietf-types review request is at |
2012-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | (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? … (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? This is a standard track RFC. It is an RTP payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec. The title page header indicates it. (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: This document specifies real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload formats to be used for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW). Three media type registrations are included for EVRC-NW RTP payload formats. In addition, a file format is specified for transport of EVRC-NW speech data in storage mode applications such as e-mail. Working Group Summary: This document went through two working group last call. As a result of the first one there were proposals to add some technical changes that were consented in the second working group last call. Document Quality: This is a payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec and it was reviewed by a couple of people in the payload working group. Personnel: Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is Robert Sparks. (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. The shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in version -03 during the WG last call. He has since reviewed the changes with each new version. A second WG last call was done to verify all changes with the WG before requesting publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document got a good review for an RTP payload specification by people who had interest in this work. (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 need for any such review. (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. No concerns (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? Yes, the shepherd has confirmed with all authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is one IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1766/ . The payload mailing list was notified as well as the draft author. There were no concerns. (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? A typical payload specification will be interesting to some of the WG participants who have interest in using this codec with RTP. As such this document had a review from individuals who have such interest and contributed text that was added after the first WGLC. (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 (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. No real ID nits in this document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The media subtype registration was reviewed by the shepherd and a request to review was sent to ietf-type mailing list. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01598.html. No comments. (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 (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. no (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. No change to other documents already published. (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). This document adds a new media subtype EVRC-NW. The document shepherd verified that the registration template are according to RFC 4855 and RFC4288 and that they are consistent with the body of the document. No new IANA registries are defined. (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. No new IANA registries. (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. No formal language. |
2012-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Note added 'Roni Even (roni.even@mail01.huawei.com) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2012-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-10-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-10-15
|
07 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-zfang-avt-rtp-evrc-nw |
2012-10-13
|
07 | Roni Even | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2012-08-22
|
07 | Roni Even | (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? … (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? This is a standard track RFC. It is an RTP payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec. The title page header indicates it. (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: This document specifies real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload formats to be used for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW). Three media type registrations are included for EVRC-NW RTP payload formats. In addition, a file format is specified for transport of EVRC-NW speech data in storage mode applications such as e-mail. Working Group Summary: This document went through two working group last call. As a result of the first one there were proposals to add some technical changes that were consented in the second working group last call. Document Quality: This is a payload specification for a 3GPP2 codec and it was reviewed by a couple of people in the payload working group. Personnel: Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is Robert Sparks. (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. The shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in version -03 during the WG last call. He has since reviewed the changes with each new version. A second WG last call was done to verify all changes with the WG before requesting publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document got a good review for an RTP payload specification by people who had interest in this work. (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 need for any such review. (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. No concerns (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? Yes, the shepherd has confirmed with all authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is one IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1766/ . The payload mailing list was notified as well as the draft author. There were no concerns. (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? A typical payload specification will be interesting to some of the WG participants who have interest in using this codec with RTP. As such this document had a review from individuals who have such interest and contributed text that was added after the first WGLC. (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 (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. No real ID nits in this document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The media subtype registration was reviewed by the shepherd and a request to review was sent to ietf-type mailing list. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01598.html. No comments. (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 (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. no (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. No change to other documents already published. (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). This document adds a new media subtype EVRC-NW. The document shepherd verified that the registration template are according to RFC 4855 and RFC4288 and that they are consistent with the body of the document. No new IANA registries are defined. (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. No new IANA registries. (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. No formal language. |
2012-08-22
|
07 | Zheng Fang | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-07.txt |
2012-04-25
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-06 | |
2012-03-07
|
06 | Roni Even | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from In WG Last Call |
2012-03-07
|
06 | Roni Even | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2012-02-22
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-06.txt |
2012-02-22
|
06 | Roni Even | second WGLC |
2011-10-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-05.txt |
2011-10-06
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-04.txt |
2011-08-18
|
06 | Roni Even | started WGLC |
2011-08-18
|
06 | Roni Even | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-04-23
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-03.txt |
2010-11-30
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-02.txt |
2010-07-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-01.txt |
2010-04-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-00.txt |