Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)
draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-03

[Ballot comment]
Please add the RFC number of the updated RFC to the Abstract such as:

  This document updates RFC 3551, the RTP/AVP profile (and by
  extension, the profiles that build upon it), to reflect changes in
  audio codec usage since the document was originally published.

[Ballot comment]

- s1: "utility is limited" seems wrong, I think you mean
that DVI4 is not or no longer attractive given more
modern codecs exist. The current text implies that
having a more modern codec installed would make DVI4
perform worse or something.

- s3, the 2nd para should be indented - I guess this is
the one that puzzled Barry and I can see why.

[Ballot comment]
I was initially confused by Section 3, until I read it a few more times, and realized that the second paragraph is not part of this document, but is quoted from 3551.  Yes, I think I was being dense.  Still, I think the quoted paragraph would get a readability benefit from indentation (as would the modified version in Section 3.1).  If you're using xml2rfc, you can simply wrap the text with '' and ''.

(Yeh, nothing is so simple that *some* <strike>fool</strike> AD can't misconstrue it....)

Less trivially:
I think the 2119 usage of "REQUIRE" in the added sentence is not correct.  The protocol is not making this a MUST (for which REQUIRE is a synonym).  The fact that it's required by some environments simply puts a bit of emphasis on the SHOULD that's already there ("REALLY REALLY SHOULD", in the style of RFC 6919).

I would make the "require" lower case.

(Yeh, nothing is so simple that *some* <strike>nitpicker</strike> AD can't find something to change....)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Update to Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Update to Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video
  Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)'
  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 2013-06-11. 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


  The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
  (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
  Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
  Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
  AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based Feedback
  (RTP/SAVPF).  This document updates the RTP/AVP profile (and by
  extension, the profiles that build upon it) to reflect changes in
  audio codec usage since the document was originally published.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Publication Writeup for draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02

(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 requested to be publised as an Proposed Standard. This is the necessary status as its update an existing full standard (RFC 3551). This is indicated in the header of the draft.


(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:

  The RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control
  (RTP/AVP) is the basis for many other profiles, such as the Secure
  Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP/SAVP), the Extended RTP Profile for
  Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/
  AVPF), and the Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-Based Feedback
  (RTP/SAVPF).  This document updates the RTP/AVP profile (and by
  extension, the profiles that build upon it) to reflect changes in
  audio codec usage since the document was originally published.


Working Group Summary:

There has been strong support for doing this update with a number of individuals being active. There was some discussion if also PCMA should be included, but there was no consensus on that, and the WG has chosen to progress without any additions to the list.

Document Quality:

The recommnedation in this document matches actual deployment better than the original recommendations in what codecs was recommended to implement. With the approval of this specification many more implementations will fulfill the recommendations in this document than previous. The document has gotten pretty good review during its development and in WG last call.


Personnel:
Magnus Westerlund is Document Shepherd. Richard Barnes is responsible AD.

(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 did a review in WG last call. Then again for the publication request focusing on the I-D checklist and the writeup questions.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, this is a very simple change and it has been reviewed by a number of people.


(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.


(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 issues

(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

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No

(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?

Yes, it is strong conensus. This has been clear in the face to face meetings when
this has been discussed. On the mailing list there has been a small group of people expressing their opinions.


(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.


There are two warnings from ID-nits:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3551, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

Actuall that is present but the document is not referenced by RFC number, only name.


  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
   
The authors of RFC 3551 has granted BCP78 rights to the trust.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal specifications present.

(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, all are published RFCs.

(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.

Yes, it will update RFC 3551 which is noted in the appropriate places.


(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).

As this this document changes one sentence and that has nothing do with the registration of any values, only there is no IANA actions text is needed.


(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 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.

None, beyond ID-nits.