RTP Payload Format for Global System for Mobile Communications Half Rate (GSM-HR)
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-gsm-hr-03

[Ballot comment]
7.1.  Media Type Definition

  The media subtype
  name contains "-08" to avoid potential conflict with any earlier
  drafts of GSM-HR RTP payload types that aren't bit compatible.

This text really belongs to the following section, which you left empty:

  [...]

  Interoperability considerations:

[Ballot comment]
Section 5.2

How likely is it that a future specification will want to assign meaning to the other FT setting? If it is likely, you may want to consider a registry.

---

Section 7.1

There are two instances of "RFC XXXX" in this section. I assume you want the RFC Editor to insert the number of this RFC when published, and that you want this reflected in the work done by IANA.

A note to this effect in the document as
-- RFC EDITOR AND IANA please blah, blah
would be helpful. Or put it in the ballot write-up.

[Ballot comment]
one nitpick - 4855 specifically identifies payload formats that could be used to hide data
as a security risk.  I believe that this format provides very limited opportunities for data hiding,
since the amount of data is fairly small and significant amounts of data would likely be audible (and not very effectively hidden!)

Perhaps a sentence or two in security considerations would be good - it would demonstrate that
all aspects of 4855's security considerations were considered.

[Ballot comment]
Just some minor edits:

Sec 3: r/network provides with mobile/network provides mobile

Sec 3: r/is one of the speech codecs that are used in/is one of the speech codecs used in

Sec 3: Should recommended and should in the last paragraph be capitalized?

IANA comments:

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

gsm-hr-08 [RFC-avt-rtp-gsm-hr-03]

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. It is ready to go.

(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 draft has drawn few comments, but they were mostly editorial. The draft is a
fairly straightforward payload type definition which draws on the model set by
payload types for other GSM-related codecs (e.g. AMR, AMR-WB). No concerns.

(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.

(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 likely situation is that the conscientous minority have checked it and the
remainder have trusted them to do so.

(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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?

Boilerplate is slightly obsolete, otherwise no nits. Possible typo in the final
normative reference, s /46.002/46.020/ (have to check). Media type review has
been performed.

(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 section points to media type registration template. No other content. The
media type has one payload-specific optional parameter, but no registry is required.

(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.

(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 document specifies the payload format for packetization of the
GSM Half-Rate speech codec data into the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP). The payload format supports transmission of multiple frames
per payload and packet loss robustness methods using redundancy.

Working Group Summary

No major issues were raised during the document's progress through the Working
Group.

Document Quality

3GPP specifications will refer to this document when published as an RFC. It is
probable that implementations already exist.

This work was initiated by one set of authors (Rocky Wang and Ying Zhang), who
ended up giving way to the authors of the present document and cooperating with
them.

The request for media type review was posted by Roni Even on 06/12/2009.