RTP Payload Format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) Codec
draft-ietf-payload-melpe-06

[Ballot comment]
I have a small issue, but I think it is important to address:

in Section 4.1: media type parameters not specified in the MIME type registration, even though they are described later in the document. The MIME type registration will be pasted to a separate file on IANA website, so it must be self contained.

[Ballot comment]
- Reference to RFC5405 should be updated to RFC8085 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis)
- Please also add the following:
OLD:
"[...] applications that use
  RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
  UDP layer [RFC5405]."
NEW:
"[..] applications that use
  RTP over UDP SHOULD implement their own congestion control above the
  UDP layer [RFC5405] and MAY as well implement a transport circuit breaker
  [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]."

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the audio subregistry of the Media Types located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

four new Media Types are to be registered as follows:

Name: MELP
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP2400
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP1200
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: MELP600
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RTP Payload Format media types subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/

four new media types are to be registered as follows:

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP2400
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP1200
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Media type: audio
Subtype: MELP600
Clockrate:
Channels:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entires for Clockrate and Channels for each of the four new entires in the RTP Payload Format media types subregistry?

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-payload-melpe@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, "Roni Even" , payload@ietf.org, roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for MELPe Codec'
  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 2017-01-13. 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 describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed
  Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder.  MELPe's
  three different speech encoding rates and sample frames sizes are
  supported.  Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are
  detailed.

INTERNET DRAFT  RTP Payload Format for the MELPe CodecDecember 13, 2016





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-melpe/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-melpe/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2387/

This is my AD Evaluation:

I think the draft is ready for IETF last call. I have a couple of editorial comments that can be addressed
along with any LC feedback.:

-3, 3rd paragraph: The last sentence seems redundant with the first sentence of paragraph 2.

- 3.3, last paragraph: "...it is recommended to inspect the coder
  rate bits contained in the last octet"
Is "recommended" intended as RECOMMENDED? From context, it seems likely but not certain.

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 a standard track RFC, it specifies and RTP payload format for MELPe Codec. RTP payload format are standard track documents.
The type is indicated on 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 describes the RTP payload format for the Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction Enhanced (MELPe) speech coder.  MELPe's three different speech encoding rates and sample frames sizes are supported.  Comfort noise procedures and packet loss concealment are  detailed.

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?

There are existing implementations and the authors came to the IETF to register the payload subtype name being already used. The request for a media type review was posted on September 8th, 2016.

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 versions 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 reviews before and during the WGLC.  The comments during the WGLC were addressed.

(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.
None.

(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.
There were comments about the need for four media subtype name and there was agreement that since they are being used already by implementations it will cause interoperability problem if not continuing with the RTP payload subtype names.

(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.
There is an IPR statement https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2387/ on the individual draft. The WG believe that it is on the codec itself and not on the RTP payload and see no problem with this 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.
Media type was reviewed. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/sQ0bP-CjgU-x8VNFiPXjmQF-8VU
(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.
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).
IANA section is OK

(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  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.
None were needed