Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc7007-03

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.

Actually 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 regestries.

(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. 
Back