Publication request for A Taxonomy of Grouping Semantics and Mechanisms for
Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources
(draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06)
A first draft of the document was produced by a team of people led by Jonathan
Lennox as draft-lennox-raiarea-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-00 in February 2013. There
were three further iterations as an author draft until the document was adopted
as a working group document by the AVTEXT working group in November 2013, with
Bo Burman taking over the lead editorship. The document has been through six
iterations as a working group document, with working group last call occurring
in November 2014. While the authors of the draft have been limited, a
significant team of experts has been working on the draft including Jonathan
Lennox, Kevin Gross, Bo Burman, Magnus Westerlund, Suhas Nandakumar, Gonzalo
Salgueiro, Harald Alvestrand.
(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?
The intended status is Informational.
The document contains terminology which can be used in other documents, but
contains no normative requirements in its own right.
The title page does indicate the intended status.
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction. The terminology about, and associations among,
Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) sources can be complex and somewhat opaque.
This document describes a number of existing and proposed relationships among
RTP sources, and attempts to define common terminology for discussing protocol
entities and their relationships.
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?
None.
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?
The document itself contains terminology only, and no requirements, so is not
directly implementable in its own right. The document has been developed in
parallel with a number of specifications in the AVTCORE, PAYLOAD, MMUSIC,
RTCWEB, and CLUE working groups, and has been reviewed by editors of documents
in those groups. Apart from the regular GenArt review, no further external
reviews are identified as needed.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Keith Drage is the document shepherd.
Ben Campbell is the responsible area director.
(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 has been read through, manually scanned for NITs, reviewed for
clarity, and all references checked. Where appropriate automated reviews have
also occurred.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews
that have been performed.
(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.
Apart from the regular GenArt review, no further external reviews are
identified as needed.
(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.
None.
(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?
Each author has independently confirmed that they have reviewed for IPR and see
no need for filing declarations
(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 disclosures have been filed on this document, nor on its predecessor
document.
(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 document represents WG consensus and has been read and reviewed by a
significant number of experts.
(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.)
None.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Apart from the regular
GenArt review, no further external reviews are identified as needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All the references in the document are informative, and that is what would be
expected, given the nature of the document.
(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?
There are no normative references in the document. Some of the informative
references are yet to be completed, but publication should proceed without
waiting for any of these references. (Obviously if RFC numbers become available
before publication they should be used).
(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.
The document is informational in nature and all the references are informative
references.
(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.
The document does not change the status of any other RFC.
(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). The document makes no IANA registrations and requires none.
(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.
The document creates no new IANA 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.
The document has no contents written in a formal language.