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
(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.
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.
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.
(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
(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