RTP Payload Format for G.719
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g719-04

[Ballot comment]
Section 12.2., paragraph 1:
>    [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines]
>              Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
>              for Application Designers",
>              draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-11 (work in progress),
>              October 2008.

  draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines has been published as RFC 5405

Document Shepherd 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 thi
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Roni Even. I have reviewed the document, 
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?

This document is a payload specification. The document went through two
WGLC. The document shepherd has no concerns about the review process.

    (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. There is no disclosed IPR on this document.

    (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?

The document has good consensus from the WG.

    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated 
          extreme discontent?  If so, please summarize 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 tool reports no nits. There is a reference to older version of
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines (10 instead of 11 but this should changed by
the RFC editor to the RFC number when published since it is a normative
reference)
Media type review was conducted starting September 18, 2008, with no
objections.

    (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 is one normative reference to 
internet-draft (draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines), and no normative
down-references.

    (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?

The IANA considerations section exists, and appears consistent with
this document, and the media type registration rules.

    (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?

SDP examples appear to be correct.

    (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 specifies the payload format for packetization of the
  G.719 full-band codec encoded audio signals into the Real-time
  Transport Protocol (RTP).  The payload format supports transmission
  of multiple channels, multiple frames per payload, and interleaving.

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?

This is a reasonably standard RTP payload format. The document has been
reviewed by the AVT working group and all open issues were addressed

          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?

Media type review was conducted starting September  18,  2008, with no
objections raised.  Vendors who contributed to the G.719 specification have
indicated their intent to support this payload.

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

Roni Even is the document shepherd.
The responsible area director is Cullen Jennings.