Skip to main content

Media Transport and Use of RTP in WebRTC
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-11-24
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-05-29
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-03-16
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2019-09-20
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2019-08-16
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2019-08-15
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT
2019-08-15
26 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2016-03-17
26 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26.txt
2015-10-15
25 Suresh Krishnan Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan.
2015-10-14
25 (System) Notify list changed from "Ted Hardie"  to (None)
2015-07-02
25 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-07-02
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2015-07-02
25 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-07-01
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-07-01
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-07-01
25 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2015-07-01
25 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2015-07-01
25 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-07-01
25 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-01
25 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2015-07-01
25 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2015-06-23
25 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-06-12
25 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-06-12
25 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25.txt
2015-06-11
24 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-06-11
24 Cindy Morgan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise by Cindy Morgan
2015-06-11
24 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-06-10
24 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-06-10
24 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Christopher Inacio.
2015-06-10
24 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
This draft looks very helpful, and I could understand it pretty well, I think.

I did have a few comments.

Am I reading …
[Ballot comment]
This draft looks very helpful, and I could understand it pretty well, I think.

I did have a few comments.

Am I reading this correctly?

  The following RTP and RTCP features are sometimes omitted in limited
  functionality implementations of RTP, but are REQUIRED in all WebRTC
  Endpoints:
 
... skipping down to ... 
 
  o  Support for sending and receiving RTCP SR, RR, SDES, and BYE
      packet types, with OPTIONAL support for other RTCP packet types
      unless mandated by other parts of this specification. 
     
Is this saying that OPTIONAL support is REQUIRED unless some other part of the spec says it's a MUST? or a MUST NOT? or something else entirely?

In this text,

  Signalled bandwidth limitations, such as SDP "b=AS:" or
  "b=CT:" lines received from the peer, MUST be followed when sending
  RTP packet streams.  A WebRTC Endpoint receiving media SHOULD signal
                                                          ^^^^^^
could you help me understand why this is a SHOULD, and not a MUST?               
                                                         
  its bandwidth limitations.  These limitations have to be based on
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  known bandwidth limitations, for example the capacity of the edge
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  links.
 
S0, not a 2119 MUST/REQUIRED ... is this simply recognizing that the signaled limitation has to be based on something, and the capacity of the edge links is the best upper limit that is easily available without probing? Or is it saying something else? I'd think the capacity of the edge links wouldn't be a great plan if you end up with a multi-unicast mesh with no middleboxes, for instance (but I could be wrong about that), but you might be saying that's still as good a limit as anything else.

In this text,

  However, implementations that can use
  detailed performance monitoring data MAY generate RTCP XR packets as
  appropriate; the use of such packets SHOULD be signalled in advance.
 
I wouldn't ask this question except that the draft has an entire section on dodgy implementations, but ... is there an unstated assumption that if the use of RTCP XR packets is signaled, the sender would respond to this information? I'm guessing "yes", and that could be fine, but I wanted to ask.

I think Section 9.  WebRTC Use of RTP: Future Extensions is very good, but I wonder if the first paragraph needs to be as 2119-heavy as it is. The second paragraph says what it needs to say without 2119 language.

In this text, I think there's a nit.

      whereas it would it all three participants were part of a single
                      ** I'm guessing this is "if"?
2015-06-10
24 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2015-06-10
24 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Am I reading this correctly?

  The following RTP and RTCP features are sometimes omitted in limited
  functionality implementations of RTP, but …
[Ballot comment]
Am I reading this correctly?

  The following RTP and RTCP features are sometimes omitted in limited
  functionality implementations of RTP, but are REQUIRED in all WebRTC
  Endpoints:
 
... skipping down to ... 
 
  o  Support for sending and receiving RTCP SR, RR, SDES, and BYE
      packet types, with OPTIONAL support for other RTCP packet types
      unless mandated by other parts of this specification. 
     
Is this saying that OPTIONAL support is REQUIRED unless some other part of the spec says it's a MUST? or a MUST NOT? or something else entirely?

In this text,

  Signalled bandwidth limitations, such as SDP "b=AS:" or
  "b=CT:" lines received from the peer, MUST be followed when sending
  RTP packet streams.  A WebRTC Endpoint receiving media SHOULD signal
                                                          ^^^^^^
could you help me understand why this is a SHOULD, and not a MUST?               
                                                         
  its bandwidth limitations.  These limitations have to be based on
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  known bandwidth limitations, for example the capacity of the edge
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  links.
 
S0, not a 2119 MUST/REQUIRED ... is this simply recognizing that the signaled limitation has to be based on something, and the capacity of the edge links is the best upper limit that is easily available without probing? Or is it saying something else? I'd think the capacity of the edge links wouldn't be a great plan if you end up with a multi-unicast mesh with no middleboxes, for instance (but I could be wrong about that), but you might be saying that's still as good a limit as anything else.

In this text,

  However, implementations that can use
  detailed performance monitoring data MAY generate RTCP XR packets as
  appropriate; the use of such packets SHOULD be signalled in advance.
 
I wouldn't ask this question except that the draft has an entire section on dodgy implementations, but ... is there an unstated assumption that if the use of RTCP XR packets is signaled, the sender would respond to this information? I'm guessing "yes", and that could be fine, but I wanted to ask.

I think Section 9.  WebRTC Use of RTP: Future Extensions is very good, but I wonder if the first paragraph needs to be as 2119-heavy as it is. The second paragraph says what it needs to say without 2119 language.

In this text, I think there's a nit.

      whereas it would it all three participants were part of a single
                      ** I'm guessing this is "if"?
2015-06-10
24 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-06-10
24 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-06-10
24 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-06-10
24 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-06-10
24 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-06-10
24 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-06-10
24 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Well written -- thanks!
I just have a small comment:

  This document uses the terminology from
  [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy] and
  …
[Ballot comment]
Well written -- thanks!
I just have a small comment:

  This document uses the terminology from
  [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy] and
  [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview].

I'm not making this a DISCUSS, but I think that definitions of terminology that are necessary for the understanding of the document need to be normative references.  I think that makes those two references normative, not informative.
2015-06-10
24 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-06-09
24 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-06-09
24 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for your work on this well-written draft.  The SecDir review picked up on a number of nits that should be corrected, …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for your work on this well-written draft.  The SecDir review picked up on a number of nits that should be corrected, tow in the Security considerations section in particular.
The full review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05759.html

And the specific fixes for the security considerations text is as follows:
The security considerations section was comprehensive and security impacts were taken into account throughout this draft.  I have two small NIT’s about the security section that I would like improved, and I feel these are rather small:  First, in the paragraph in the security section that starts “RTCP packets convey a Canonical Name…”  the authors state that the CNAME generation algorithm in described in section 4.9 – it isn’t, section 4.9 references RFC7022 for the generation algorithm.  Second, the last paragraph on page 39, starting with “Providing source authentication in multi-party…” ends the page with a large security warning.  Please include a reference in that paragraph in the security considerations and possibly to the appropriate draft/RFC which discusses that issue in some more depth.
2015-06-09
24 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-06-08
24 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Edit: Meta-Comment: The notify field for this draft seems sparse.


I found this in general to be informative and well written, given the …
[Ballot comment]
Edit: Meta-Comment: The notify field for this draft seems sparse.


I found this in general to be informative and well written, given the rather large scope of information. I do have a few comments/questions:

Substantive:

-- 4.9: The discussion of RTCPeerConnection in this section seems to need a normative reference to [W3C.WD-webrtc-20130910] (or a local explanation, if there are issues normatively referencing that doc.)

-- 5.1: This section seems to need a normative reference to topologies-update. There is normative language here to the effect of “Don’t do these things” where it seems like one needs to read that doc to understand what the “things” mean.

-- 7.1, first paragraph: "applications MUST also implement congestion control to
  allow them to adapt to changes in network capacity."
 
  Is that the aformentioned not-yet-standardized congestion control algorithm, or something else?
 
-- 11, 2nd paragraph from end:

It seems like the msid reference should be normative.

-- 12.1.3:

seems like a mention of draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp might be in order now. IIRC, when I did a gen-art review on a much older version, the thought was that if draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp was far enough along when it was time to publish this draft, it would make sense to add a mention. It's in the RFC editor queue now, in MISSREF on a dependency that I think this draft shares.

-- 13: 3rd paragraph:

Isn't that security solution MTU as well as MTI? If so, it might be worth mentioning it here.
 
Editorial:

-- 11, paragraph 3: "...can be feeding multiple..."

Consider "... can feed multiple ..."

paragraph 4: "This is motivating the discussion..."

consider "This motivates the discussion..."  (or possibly "motivated")

paragraph 5: "... each of different MediaStreamTracks ..."

missing "the"

paragraph 6: "... relay/forward ..."

consider "... relay or forward ..."

-- 12.1, last sentence "... ways in which WebRTC Endpoints can configure and use
  RTP sessions is outlined."
 
s/is/are
2015-06-08
24 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2015-06-08
24 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I found this in general to be informative and well written, given the rather large scope of information. I do have a few …
[Ballot comment]
I found this in general to be informative and well written, given the rather large scope of information. I do have a few comments/questions:

Substantive:

-- 4.9: The discussion of RTCPeerConnection in this section seems to need a normative reference to [W3C.WD-webrtc-20130910] (or a local explanation, if there are issues normatively referencing that doc.)

-- 5.1: This section seems to need a normative reference to topologies-update. There is normative language here to the effect of “Don’t do these things” where it seems like one needs to read that doc to understand what the “things” mean.

-- 7.1, first paragraph: "applications MUST also implement congestion control to
  allow them to adapt to changes in network capacity."
 
  Is that the aformentioned not-yet-standardized congestion control algorithm, or something else?
 
-- 11, 2nd paragraph from end:

It seems like the msid reference should be normative.

-- 12.1.3:

seems like a mention of draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp might be in order now. IIRC, when I did a gen-art review on a much older version, the thought was that if draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp was far enough along when it was time to publish this draft, it would make sense to add a mention. It's in the RFC editor queue now, in MISSREF on a dependency that I think this draft shares.

-- 13: 3rd paragraph:

Isn't that security solution MTU as well as MTI? If so, it might be worth mentioning it here.
 
Editorial:

-- 11, paragraph 3: "...can be feeding multiple..."

Consider "... can feed multiple ..."

paragraph 4: "This is motivating the discussion..."

consider "This motivates the discussion..."  (or possibly "motivated")

paragraph 5: "... each of different MediaStreamTracks ..."

missing "the"

paragraph 6: "... relay/forward ..."

consider "... relay or forward ..."

-- 12.1, last sentence "... ways in which WebRTC Endpoints can configure and use
  RTP sessions is outlined."
 
s/is/are
2015-06-08
24 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-06-08
24 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-06-04
24 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2015-06-04
24 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2015-06-03
24 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-05-29
24 Magnus Westerlund IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-05-29
24 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24.txt
2015-05-28
23 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-05-26
23 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-05-26
23 Pearl Liang
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-05-25
23 Alissa Cooper Telechat date has been changed to 2015-06-11 from 2015-05-28
2015-05-24
23 Alissa Cooper Ballot has been issued
2015-05-24
23 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-05-24
23 Alissa Cooper Created "Approve" ballot
2015-05-24
23 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2015-05-15
23 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo
2015-05-15
23 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo
2015-05-15
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio
2015-05-15
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio
2015-05-14
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2015-05-14
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2015-05-14
23 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-05-14
23 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC): Media …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in
WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document:
- 'Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP'
  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 2015-05-28. 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 Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) framework provides support
  for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video, text,
  collaboration, games, etc.  between two peers' web-browsers.  This
  memo describes the media transport aspects of the WebRTC framework.
  It specifies how the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in
  the WebRTC context, and gives requirements for which RTP features,
  profiles, and extensions need to be supported.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-05-14
23 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-05-14
23 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-05-28
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper Last call was requested
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper Ballot approval text was generated
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was generated
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper Last call announcement was generated
2015-05-13
23 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-03-30
23 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23.txt
2015-03-25
22 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie
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?

The intended status is Proposed Standard.

(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

  The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) framework provides support
  for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video, text,
  and other media  between two peers' web-browsers.  This
  document describes the media transport aspects of the WebRTC framework.
  It specifies how the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in
  the WebRTC context, and gives requirements for which RTP features,
  profiles, and extensions need to be supported.

Working Group Summary

The document passed initial WG last call at version 14, with an
outstanding issue about FEC remaining; that has since been split
into a new document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec).  Between that draft and
this there were also additional comments on video orientation and
media stream identification which resulted in new text.  I do not believe
there were areas where consensus is particularly rough at this point.

Document Quality

There are multiple implementations of the WebRTC framework
and they generally interoperate.  The review of the draft by the
working group was adequate, if prolonged.  It should be noted
that some less-used aspects of RTP processing are well-understood
by only a small number of participants, but the related matters
appear to be resolved.

Personnel

Ted Hardie is the Document Shepherd.  Richard Barnes is the Responsible
Area Director. 

(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 re-read the document, re-reviewed the diffs
in the chain back to WGLC, and re-reviewed the relevant mailing list
discussions.


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

As noted above, some aspects of RTP processing are relatively little
used and review of their applicability to the WebRTC context was
occasionally limited.  Both authors are, however, noted experts in
this and the working group members with experience concurred
with the decisions made for those issues.

(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.

As the IESG is aware, this document describes the RTP usage
of a system which expects multi-participant, multi-stream, heterogenous
usage of both media and data channels.  In that context, congestion
control is an obvious concern, and the IESG chartered RMCAT to
focus on this and related issues.  The current document
mandates the use of a fairly limited congestion control  mechanism
(circuit breakers, specified in draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers)
as well describing additional limitations for both legacy systems
and specific topologies.  The working group and chairs believe
that the result is appropriate given what can currently be achieved.
Further review of this point is expected, but we encourage the IESG
to work with reviewers who are aware of the RMCAT work and understand
the general ecosystem.


(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.

The document shepherd has not issues of this type with this document.

(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.

They have so 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 are no IPR disclosures directly filed for this document.

(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 consensus is strong, but the expertise on all aspects of this
subject is variable.  As a result, there is some deference to those with
extensive experience.

(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.)

The document shepherd is not aware of any threatened appeal or
similar discontent.

(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.

There is one stale reference:  draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-00
is mentioned but a -04 is available.

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

This document contains now requests to IANA nor does it specify
a MIB, so the relevant formal reviews are not required.

(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?

There are normative references to multiple documents which are works in
progress, but these are already in progress in the relevant working groups.

(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 downrefs have been identified.

(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, this will not change the state of any existing RFC.

(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).

This document makes no request of IANA.

(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.

This document makes no request of IANA.

(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.

This document does not use any formal language. 
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie Responsible AD changed to Richard Barnes
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-02-12
22 Ted Hardie Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-02-10
22 Sean Turner Changed document writeup
2015-02-09
22 Ted Hardie Notification list changed to "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
2015-02-09
22 Ted Hardie Document shepherd changed to Ted Hardie
2015-02-09
22 Ted Hardie Changed document writeup
2015-02-09
22 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-22.txt
2014-11-26
21 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-21.txt
2014-11-10
20 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-20.txt
2014-10-27
19 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-19.txt
2014-10-21
18 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-18.txt
2014-08-25
17 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-17.txt
2014-07-23
16 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-16.txt
2014-07-02
15 Cullen Jennings Cullen to do proto write up around IETF 90
2014-07-02
15 Cullen Jennings IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2014-05-28
15 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-15.txt
2014-05-16
14 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-14.txt
2014-04-23
13 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13.txt
2014-02-14
12 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12.txt
2014-01-10
11 Magnus Westerlund Document shepherd changed to Cullen Jennings
2013-12-16
11 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-11.txt
2013-10-21
10 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-10.txt
2013-09-05
09 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-09.txt
2013-09-01
08 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-08.txt
2013-07-15
07 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-07.txt
2013-02-25
06 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06.txt
2012-10-22
05 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-05.txt
2012-07-16
04 Magnus Westerlund New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-04.txt
2012-06-04
03 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03.txt
2012-03-12
02 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-02.txt
2011-10-31
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-01.txt
2011-09-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-00.txt