Registering Values of the SDP 'proto' Field for Transporting RTP Media over TCP under Various RTP Profiles
draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-04-22
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-04-18
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-04-12
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-03-24
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-03-24
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-03-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-03-21
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-03-21
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-03-21
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-03-21
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-03-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-03-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-03-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-21
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-18
|
06 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-03-17
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2016-03-17
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Some editorial comments from Meral's Gen-ART review might be useful to address. Have the authors seen those? |
2016-03-17
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-03-16
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-03-15
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-03-15
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-03-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-03-14
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2016-03-13
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Sarah Banks performed the opsdir review. |
2016-03-13
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-03-11
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-03-10
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-03-10
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-03-10
|
06 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2016-03-07
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-17 |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-04
|
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-29
|
06 | Suhas Nandakumar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-02-29
|
06 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-06.txt |
2016-02-27
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. |
2016-02-26
|
05 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-02-26
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-02-25
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Adam Montville. |
2016-02-18
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-18
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the proto subregistry of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/ seven new SDP transport protocol identifiers will be registered as follows: Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/RTP/AVPF Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/RTP/SAVP Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/RTP/SAVPF Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type: proto SDP Name: TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-02-17
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2016-02-17
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2016-02-15
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-02-15
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-02-13
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2016-02-13
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, "Bo Burman" , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, "Bo Burman" , bo.burman@ericsson.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IANA registrations of SDP 'proto' attribute for transporting RTP Media over TCP under various RTP profiles.) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document: - 'IANA registrations of SDP 'proto' attribute for transporting RTP Media over TCP under various RTP profiles.' as 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 2016-02-26. 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 The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification establishes a registry of profile names for use by higher-level control protocols, such as the Session Description Protocol (SDP), to refer to the transport methods. This specification describes the following new SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP: 'TCP/RTP/AVPF', 'TCP/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/ SAVP', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF'. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-02-12
|
05 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-01-26
|
05 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-05.txt |
2016-01-14
|
04 | Ben Campbell | Here's my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration. I have a couple of comments I'd like to resolve before last call, and a few editorial comments.: Substantive … Here's my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration. I have a couple of comments I'd like to resolve before last call, and a few editorial comments.: Substantive (to be resolved before last call): - (This is really editorial, but I think there's a chance for confusion.) The references in section 3 seem insufficient. Section 1 lists RFCs that define most of all of the related transport protocol profiles. For example, [RFC4585] for TCP/RTP/AVPF and [RFC3711] for TCP/RTP/SAVP. That information should probably also go in section 3, since that's the section referenced by the IANA considerations section. To avoid duplication, consider moving the bits after the first paragraph of section 1 into the respective subsections of 3. - The security considerations seem inadequate. Most, if not all, of the proto values listed here refer to some other RFC that has it's own security considerations. So it doesn't really seem true to say there are no considerations other than those in 4566. Editorial (non-blocking): - The abstract is long. The 2nd paragraph describes what the draft does. Can some or all of the first paragraph be relegated to the intro? - 3: It would be helpful to mention that the transport protocol mentioned in the first paragraph goes in the field in the M-line. |
2016-01-14
|
04 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? A Proposed Standard RFC is being requested. The document describes a set of new SDP transport protocol identifiers, to be normatively used when transporting media over TCP. The title page indicates "Standards Track". (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 Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification establishes a registry of profile names for use by higher-level control protocols, such as the Session Description Protocol (SDP), to refer to the transport methods. This specification describes the following new SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP: 'TCP/RTP/AVPF', 'TCP/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF'. 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? No. 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? Flemming Andreasen, Bo Burman and Cullen Jennings reviewed the document and found no issues. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The Document Shepherd is Bo Burman. 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 read the submitted version of the document fully and found no issues. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document got good review from a few key MMUSIC members and all comments were addressed. Since the document was initiated as part of a discussion around draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports, the topic was also discussed in RTCWEB WG. (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. (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. The author has confirmed that he does not know of any IPR disclosures that would be required. (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. (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? A fairly small number of key people have commented on the draft itself in MMUSIC, but the discussions around the topic started already as part of draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports and draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep in RTCWEB WG, where there were more discussion and agreement around the way forward that is now described by this document. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-04.txt No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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? Not applicable. (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. No. (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. No. (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 defines seven new SDP "proto" values (Section 5), which are correctly described. No new registries are defined. (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. Not applicable. (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. Not applicable. |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Bo Burman | Changed document writeup |
2016-01-08
|
04 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-04.txt |
2016-01-04
|
03 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-03.txt |
2015-11-20
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | Notification list changed to "Bo Burman" <bo.burman@ericsson.com> |
2015-11-20
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | Document shepherd changed to Bo Burman |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-10-27
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | This document now replaces draft-nandakumar-mmusic-proto-iana-registration instead of None |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Flemming Andreasen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-14
|
02 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Flemming Andreasen" to (None) |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-02.txt |
2015-09-04
|
01 | Flemming Andreasen | Notification list changed to "Flemming Andreasen" <fandreas@cisco.com> |
2015-09-04
|
01 | Flemming Andreasen | Document shepherd changed to Flemming Andreasen |
2015-07-02
|
01 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-01.txt |
2015-06-09
|
00 | Suhas Nandakumar | New version available: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration-00.txt |