Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2012-09-12 for -19)
Please consider expanding "RTP" in the first line of the Abstract.
Comment (2012-09-25 for -22)
Thanks for addressing all my points.
For the record, I want to stress I didn't request, part of my review, the
addition of the following sentence (added in version 22) part of my review:
New RTCP XR report block definitions should not define new performance
metrics, but should rather refer to metrics defined elsewhere
Comment (2012-09-11 for -19)
Saying "encryption of the monitoring report is recommended"
seems a bit trite. I'm not asking that you define precisely how
to secure all possible RTP deployment choices, but perhaps the
right thing to do here is to say that these metrics SHOULD be
secured to the same extent as the RTP flows that they measure.
(Or some such.)
How could you encrypt traffic for a 3rd party monitor without
knowing who that monitor is? That seems somewhat impossible
in general. So, as pointed out by the secdir review  the
document should at least recognise the problem and maybe
describe some environments where it can in fact be solved.
Comment (2012-09-09 for -18)
The authors report than changes are pending to handle the editorial
comments raised in the Gen-ART Review by Meral Shirazipour on
31-Jul-2012. I hope the updated I-D will be posted prior to IESG
approval of this document.