RTP Topologies
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-10

[Ballot comment]
Suresh Krishnan made a comment in his Gen-ART review that I believe was a good suggestion:

I think it would be great if the document had a section indicating
what has changed since RFC5117. Even listing just the new topologies
would be very useful (e.g. Something that mentions that Sections 3.2,
3.4, 3.7 and 3.10 are new topologies). That way somebody who is already
familiar with RFC5117 can look at the new stuff right away.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

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:  (RTP Topologies) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Topologies'
  as Informational RFC

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 2015-06-17. 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


  This document discusses point to point and multi-endpoint topologies
  used in Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)-based environments.  In
  particular, centralized topologies commonly employed in the video
  conferencing industry are mapped to the RTP terminology.

  This document is updated with additional topologies and replaces RFC
  5117.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update/ballot/


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

Here is my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rto-topologies-update-07:

Summary: Looks good. I only have one minor substantive comment, and some editorial comments. There's nothing here to block IETF last call.

Substantive:

-- 3.4, first paragraph after Figure 10:

"... two different encoder instances, each being associated with two independent RTP sessions (RTP1 and RTP2)."

Each is associated with a separate RTP session, or each is associated with both sessions? The language suggests the latter but figure 10 seems to show the former.

Editorial:

--1, first paragraph:

"...and their processing behavior of RTP and RTCP"

s/of/for

"...use in the conversational communication industry,..."

Is "conversational" a subset of the communication industry, or do you mean "used conversationally in…"?

-- 3.2.2:

Inconsistent short-name labeling. Sometimes it’s in a heading, sometimes imbedded in the text. If these are to be used for reference purposes, it would help to be consistent. (I recognize that some of this is from the non-updated text, but much is in new text.)

-- 3.3: "Both these models are discussed below in their respective sections. "

s/Both/Each of

-- 3.4, first paragraph after Figure 9:

I have trouble parsing the first sentence.

-- 3.7, 2nd paragraph after figure 17:

First and third sentences are both run-on with comma-splices.

3rd paragraph after figure 17 "Using separate SSRC spaces have..."

s/have/has  (Subject is the singular gerund "Using")

4th paragraph after figure 17: "... responsible to receive ..."

s/"to receive"/"for receiving"

-- 3:10, paragraph starting with "The various (media processsing) subunits..."

In the last sentence, why is "(independent)" in parentheses? It doesn't seem parenthetical.

-- 4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence:

I have trouble parsing this sentence. (The similar sentence in 5117 was easier to follow.)

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 document will be an Informational RFC, This document discusses point to point and multi-endpoint topologies used in Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)-based environments. The type is indicated in the title page


(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:
This document discusses point to point and multi-endpoint topologies used in Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)-based environments.  In particular, centralized topologies commonly employed in the video conferencing industry are mapped to the RTP terminology.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
The document was discussed in the meetings and on the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues, there was consensus on the content of the document.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
This is not a protocol. The document describes existing topologies and describes the implications on RTP and RTCP for implementers.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd.
The responsible AD is Ben Campbell.
(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 document shepherd reviewed the document in previous and current version and found it ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document had good reviews before and during the WGLC.

(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 need

(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 concerns

(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. The authors confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR
(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?
The WG understand the document and agree with it.


(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.
No issues
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No need for formal review
(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
(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.
There are none
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC5117, mentioned in the abstract and the introduction and listed on the title page.
(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).
No IANA action

(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 IANA action
(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.
No need