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

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    avtcore mailing list <avt@ietf.org>,
    avtcore chair <avtcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Update to Remove DVI4 from the Recommended Codecs for the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control (RTP/AVP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-03.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- '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.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs/

Ballot Text

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.

RFC Editor Note