IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-02

[Ballot comment]
(1) s/these ICE options needs/these ICE options need/

(2) Are there no existing ice-options that should be added to the registry?
Looks like there aren't but just checking.

IANA has questions about the IANA Actions contained in this document.

IANA understands that this document intends to create a registry for ICE
options that should have been created upon publication of RFC 5245.
IANA further understands that new registrations in the ICE options
registry will be done through Specification Required as in RFC 5226.

IANA Question --> what items should be recorded in the ICE Options
registry? The document under consideration clearly specifies what must
be provided in future documents in order to add new items into the ICE
Options registry, but IANA does not know which of these should be
recorded in the registry.

IANA Question --> there seems to be an initial registry of one item in
the new ICE Options registry. What is that item and how should it
appear in the initial registry?

IANA understands that, once the format and initial contents of the
registry are clarified, creating the new registry will be the only IANA
Action required upon approval of the document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Options'
  as a Proposed Standard

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 2011-05-12. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the

Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the

document and, in particular, does he or she believe this

version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?


Flemming Andreasen is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this
version of the document and believe it is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has had adequate review from key WG members only. The
document is small and straightforward and hence there are no concerns
about the depth and breadt of the reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?


No concerns.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns
No IPR disclosure

(1.e) 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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals with others being silent.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No discontent has been observed.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document has been checked with "idnits" as well as manually and
appears to satisfy all nits and review criteria.



(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].


References are split into normative and information and all references
are to existing RFCs. There are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations are as required.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?


ABNF has been validated.

(1.k) 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.


Technical Summary:

It has been identified that Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) RFC5245 is missing a registry for ICE options. This document
defines this missing IANA registry and updates RFC5245.


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?


Working Group Summary

The document was produced in a short period of time to rectify a missing
IANA registry for ICE. The document is straightforward and represents
the consensus of the MMUSIC WG.

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?


Document Quality

The document quality is good.

There are no known implementations of ice-options, however it is needed
for "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP"
(draft-ietf-avt-ecn-for-rtp) currently being developed in the AVTCORE WG.