Shepherd writeup

Draft Request for Publication
April 1, 2021

Document:  RTP Payload Format for VP9 Video
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Document Shepard: Bernard Aboba

(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? 

Publication as a Proposed Standard is requested. The VP9 Payload draft was a PAYLOAD WG work item, is now widely deployed.

(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 an RTP payload specification applicable to the
   transmission of video streams encoded using the VP9 video codec
   [VP9-BITSTREAM].  The format described in this document can be used
   both in peer-to-peer and video conferencing applications.

   The VP9 video codec was developed by Google, and is the successor to
   its earlier VP8 [RFC6386] codec.  Above the compression improvements
   and other general enhancements above VP8, VP9 is also designed in a
   way that allows spatially-scalable video encoding.

Working Group Summary:

Recent discussion of the VP9 payload format has centered on support for framemarking as well as some SDP questions.  
Since framemarking does not support some popular spatial scalability modes (e.g. K-SVC), support for framemarking has
not caught on, and framemarking support was recently removed from the distribution. As a result, a section
on framemarking has been removed from the VP9 RTP payload specification.

Document Quality:

The VP9 RTP payload format is widely deployed, as part of the distribution. This includes implementations in browsers as well as mobile, tablet and desktop applications.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

Bernard Aboba is the Document Shepard. Responsible AD is Murray Kutcheraway.

(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 Shepard has reviewed the document as part of WGLC, and made comments that were subsequently addressed by the authors. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns.

(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 additional reviews appear to be needed. The document has already been reviewed by a member of the SDP Directorate (Christer Holmberg).

(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?


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

IPR disclosures have been filed: 

2020-11-23	4497	Nokia Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-vp9
(Updates ID#: 4496)
2020-11-23	4496	Nokia Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-vp9
2020-11-20	4491	Nokia Technologies Oy's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-payload-vp9
2015-05-04	2593	Vidyo, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-uberti-payload-vp9

A summary of the disclosures was sent to the WG mailing list on 2 March 2021:

The disclosures were also brought up at the IETF 110 AVTCORE WG meeting. 

No objections to proceeding with the publication of the VP9 document were raised either on the mailing list or at the IETF 110 meeting. 

(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 has multiple participants who have been involved in the development and deployment of the VP9 RTP payload format. This includes participants who developed the implementation as well as participants who have developed applications supporting VP9.  Given this experience, WG understanding of the VP9 payload format is good and consensus is solid. 

(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.) 

There have been no heated discussions or indication of extreme (or even mild) discontent. No threats of an appeal. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

idnits 2.16.05 


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'VP9-BITSTREAM'

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

The document includes a Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

References are separated into normative and informative categories.

(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? 

The document includes a normative reference to the VP9 Bitstream specification that is not an IETF document: 

              Grange, A., de Rivaz, P., and J. Hunt, "VP9 Bitstream &
              Decoding Process Specification", Version 0.6, 31 March

(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 is a reference to the LRR draft: 

              Lennox, J., Hong, D., Uberti, J., Holmer, S., and M.
              Flodman, "The Layer Refresh Request (LRR) RTCP Feedback
              Message", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              avtext-lrr-07, 2 July 2017, <

(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 changes to the status of existing RFCs. 

(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 8126). 

I have reviewed the Media Type Definition (Section 6.1). It appears consistent with the rest of the document.

(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 Media Type Definition (Section 6.1) will require review. 

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No formal languages. 

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG modules.