RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-12

[Ballot comment]

I notice that the security section says:

"This proposed RTCP XR report block introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in RFC 3611."

Doesn't that depend on what the reported error counters are used for? I can imagine that there might some relationship between reported errors and contractual SLAs and hence an attack on these error fields may have implications for the network operator.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-09.txt.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA needs to complete.

First, in the RTCP XR Block Type subregistry of the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Block Type Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-block-types/rtcp-xr-block-types.xml

a new block type will be registered as follows:

BT: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: MPEG2 Transport Stream PSI Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics Block
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR) Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtcp-xr-sdp-parameters

a new parameter will be registered as follows:

Parameter: ts-psi-indep-decodability
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics reporting) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Metric Blocks for use with
RTCP's Extended Report Framework WG (xrblock) to consider the following
document:
- 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2
  Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI)
  Independent Decodability Statistics Metrics reporting'
  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 2013-03-15. 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


  An MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in
  the transmission and storage of multimedia data.  Unicast/Multicast
  MPEG2 TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems.  This document
  defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block
  that allows the reporting of MPEG2 TS Program Specific Information
  (PSI) Independent decodability statistics metrics related to
  transmissions of MPEG2 TS over RTP.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability/ballot/


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

UPDATED:
(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?

Proposed Standard - similar to all the other XRBLOCK documents. Header says ' Intended status: Standards Track '

(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

An MPEG Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in
the transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast/
Broadcast MPEG-TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This
document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Block that allows the reporting of MPEG TS Program Specific
Information (PSI) Independent decodability statistics metrics related
to transmissions of MPEG-TS over RTP.

Working Group Summary

The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient.
Many technical comments were made during the reviews and all were
resolved with consensus.

Document Quality

At least one vendor has implemented this draft. It is expected that with
the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase.

Personnel

Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo
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.

I have performed a detailed review of the document and I consider it
ready.

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

No.

(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.

This I-D deals with metrics defined in the ETSI TR 101 290 document.
Although the metrics defined by that document are stable and in usage
in the industry, not all information may be available or expressed
in the format used in the IETF. For this reason a PM-DIR review may help.
Although several PM-DIR members participate in the WG, a formal RFC 6390
review could be useful.
An SDP review was required from the SDP directorate.

(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.

I have no concerns. One aspect that was discussed in detail was the scope of
the metrics to be supported (report all indications in the first priority and
second priority vs. report all the parameters that can be easily gathered by
parsing the TS header). The consensus was to include the more limited scope
and explicitly say that the block includes MPEG TS PSI Independent
decodability statistics.

(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.

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability or its predecessors.

(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 number of active participants in the Working Group is not very high (around ten). Among the active participants there seems to be solid consensus in support of this document.

(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.

I would recommend for another reviewer from the performance metrics directorate to do an RFC 6390 review of the I-D.
An SDP review was required from the SDP directorate.

(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?

N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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).

The document requires from IANA allocations of values in existing registries which are clearly defined.

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A

-------------------------------------------------------------------

(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?

Proposed Standard - similar to all the other XRBLOCK documents. Header says ' Intended status: Standards Track '

(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

An MPEG Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in
the transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast/
Broadcast MPEG-TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This
document defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR)
Block that allows the reporting of MPEG TS Program Specific
Information (PSI) Independent decodability statistics metrics related
to transmissions of MPEG-TS over RTP.

Working Group Summary

The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient.
Many technical comments were made during the reviews and all were
resolved with consensus.

Document Quality

At least one vendor has implemented this draft. It is expected that with
the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase.

Personnel

Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo
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.

I have performed a detailed review of the document and I consider it
ready.

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

No.

(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.

This I-D deals with metrics defined in the ETSI TR 101 290 document.
Although the metrics defined by that document are stable and in usage
in the industry, not all information may be available or expressed
in the format used in the IETF. For this reason a PM-DIR review may help.
Although several PM-DIR members participate in the WG, a formal RFC 6390
review could be useful.

(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.

I have no concerns. One aspect that was discussed in detail was the scope of
the metrics to be supported (report all indications in the first priority and
second priority vs. report all the parameters that can be easily gathered by
parsing the TS header). The consensus was to include the more limited scope
and explicitly say that the block includes MPEG TS PSI Independent
decodability statistics.

(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.

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

No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability or its predecessors.

(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 number of active participants in the Working Group is not very high (around ten). Among the active participants there seems to be solid consensus in support of this document.

(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.

I would recommend for another reviewer from the performance metrics directorate to do an RFC 6390 review of the I-D.

(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?

N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

N/A

(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.

N/A

(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).

The document requires from IANA allocations of values in existing registries which are clearly defined.

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A