RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Decodability Statistics Metrics Reporting
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-07

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding the additional reference [RFC6990] to address my prior discuss question:

I have a question on the security considerations and would like to discuss it to see if it can be improved in the current document.

The Security Considerations Section references RFC3611.  In RFC3611, confidentiality concerns are raised and it is good that they are spelled out explicitly.  SRTCP is mentioned as a possible option, but says it is just in development.  What's the current use of SRTCP and should there be a stronger recommendation for it's use in this new draft to address the confidentiality concerns?  Or are there other measures that have evolved for confidentiality and DoS protections since RFC3611 was written.

Thanks.

[Ballot comment]
This is probably explained in some ETSI document, but the sole distinction between PAT_error_count and PAT_error_2_count seems to be whether it reports the absence of a table of type 0, or the presence of a table not of type 0.  The document explains that the two counts can't coexist, but doesn't explain why.  If this is explained somewhere else, a reference to that document might be helpful.  (I didn't find an explanation in section 5.2.1 of [ETSI], FWIW).  Same observation applies for PMT_error_count.

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I wonder if anybody who is an MPEG-TS expert has reviewed this document? This is not clear from the sherpherd write-up.

[Ballot discuss]
I don't understand why an implementation MUST NOT send PAT_error_count if it has PAT_error_2_count, and vice-versa, and MUST NOT send PMT_error_count if it has PMT_error_2_count, and vice-versa. If I happen to have PAT_error_count in addition to PAT_error_2_count, what harm will come if I send both? If there is harm, shouldn't there also be a requirement that if you receive a block with both values, you MUST discard it? Please explain. It seems to me that these requirements are incorrect.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a question on the security considerations and would like to discuss it to see if it can be improved in the current document.

The Security Considerations Section references RFC3611.  In RFC3611, confidentiality concerns are raised and it is good that they are spelled out explicitly.  SRTCP is mentioned as a possible option, but says it is just in development.  What's the current use of SRTCP and should there be a stronger recommendation for it's use in this new draft to address the confidentiality concerns?  Or are there other measures that have evolved for confidentiality and DoS protections since RFC3611 was written.

Thanks.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:
IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

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

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

a new block type is to be added as follows:

BT: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Name: "MPEG2 Transport Stream PSI 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 is to be registered as follows:

Parameter: ts-psi-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
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) 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)
  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 2014-07-07. 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 decodability statistics metrics
  related to transmissions of MPEG2 TS over RTP.  The metrics specified
  in the RTCP XR Block are related to Program specific information
  carried in MPEG TS.




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

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


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

(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?

Standards Track (Proposed Standard) - mentioned in the header

(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 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 decodability statistics metrics
related to transmissions of MPEG2 TS over RTP. The metrics specified
in the RTCP XR Block are related to Program specific information
carried in MPEG TS.


Working Group Summary:

The document was reviewed by the key contributors in the WG, and the comments were addressed accordingly.

Document Quality:

MPEG2 is a mature and widely deployed technology. The document was reviewed by Christer Holmberg for the SDP directorate. At least one contributor expressed the intentions of his employer to implement the future RFC.

Personnel:

Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper 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 reviewed the document and I believe that it is ready for submission.



(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.

The usual reviews for the XRBLOCK documents. SDP directorate review was already performed.

(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?

Yes.

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

None.

(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 participants in the XRBLOCK WG is not too large. The current active participants showed consensus on submitting the 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.

idnits runs clean. One warning about a normative reference to an ETSI TR can be ignored, as ETSI TRs have been considered in other cases as holding the same level as IETF Standards Track documents for these purpose.

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

SDP review was performed, and the comments made by the reviewer were addressed.

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

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. See (11)

(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.

No. See (11)

(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).

IANA is required to add one new value in two existing registries, according to procedures described in RFC 3611 and RFC 4566. No problems here.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
N/A