SDP and RTSP Extensions Defined for 3GPP Packet-Switched Streaming Service and Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service
draft-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-08

[Ballot discuss]
I would like to talk how this draft is discussing change control. What would we expect to see in the IETF if the semantics of any of these registered items needs to change? Would this be setting a new precedent?

IANA comments:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
sub-registry: Proto

Type SDP Name Reference
-------------- --------------------------- ---------
proto udp/mbms-fec/rtp/avp [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07]
[3GPP TS 26.346]
udp/mbms-fec/rtp/savp [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.346]
udp/mbms-repair [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.346]


Action #2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
sub-registry: att-field (session level only)

Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
att-field (session level)
3gpp-integrity-key [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-sdp-auth [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
alt-group [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]


Action #3:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
sub-registry: att-field (media level only)
Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
att-field (media level only)
3gpp-adaptation-support [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP
TS 26.234]
3gpp-srtp-config [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-videopostdecbufsize [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP
TS 26.234]
alt [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
alt-default-id [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
framesize [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
mbms-flowid [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.246]
X-decbyterate [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
X-initpredecbufperiod [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
X-initpostdecbufperiod [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
X-predecbufsize [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]


Action #4:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters
sub-registry: att-field (session and media level)

Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
att-field (both session and media level)
3gpp-qoe-metrics [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-asset-information [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
mbms-mode [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.246]
mbms-repair [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.246]


Action #5:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "RTSP/1.0 Headers" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtsp-parameters/

Header name Reference
--------------------------- ---------
3gpp-adaptation [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-freshness-token [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
3gpp-link-char [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-qoe-metrics [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-qoe-feedback [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-videopostdecbufsize [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP
TS 26.234]
pipelined-requests [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
play response [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
sdp-requested [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
switch-stream [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
supported [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
x-initpredecbufperiod [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
x-initpostdecbufperiod [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
x-predecbufsize [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]


Action #6:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "RTSP/1.0 Option Tags" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtsp-parameters/

Option Tage Reference
--------------------------- ---------
3gpp-pipelined [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-switch [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]
3gpp-switch-req-sdp [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS
26.234]
3gpp-switch-stream [RFC-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07] [3GPP TS 26.234]

This is document writeup for draft-westerlund-mmusic-3gpp-sdp-rtsp-07
for publication as informational RFC as AD sponsored.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The author Magnus Westerlund will be the document shepherd. He believe
it to be ready for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

Not an WG document. It has been announced and discussed and reviewed
by people in MMUSIC WG.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No Concerns

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

No concerns

  (1.e) 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?

Not a WG document.

  (1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No concerns

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See
        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

idnits 2.11.11 run and no relevant issues listed.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split. This document contains normative references to
three 3GPP Technical Specifications that are approved since quite some
time. These release 7 document was first pubished in 2007 and the rate
of change requests has died down.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document shepherd believes the IANA section is correct and clear on
what registrations should be done and in what registries.


  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

No formal language in the doucment.

  (1.k) 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 Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS) and the Multimedia
Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) defined by 3GPP use SDP and RTSP
with some extensions.  This document provides information about these
extensions and registers the RTSP and SDP extensions with IANA.


        Working Group Summary

This is not an WG document. It is an individual AD sponsored draft.
However, it has been circulated several times in MMUSIC WG and they are
informed about the intended publication.

        Document Quality

This document is primary instructions to IANA about what to register.
In addition it functions as information to the IETF community about
what extensions that has been done by 3GPP. The 3GPP document defining
the extensions in the releases referenced here are stable as they where
first published in June 2007.