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 |