RTP Payload Format for Elementary Streams with MPEG Surround Multi-Channel Audio
RFC 5691

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss-discuss, intended to stimulate discussion on the telechat.  If the discussion
persuades me these changes are inapropriate for an extensions draft, I will move to comment
on the call.  The authors are requested to consider the issues raised in either case...

This document updates RFC 3640, and largely depends upon 3640 for its security
considerations.  RFC 4855 imposed new requirements for payload registration, including
a number of issues in the security considerations section (e.g., identifying whether there is
active content, opportunities for steganography, and issues arising from compression
techniques).

I would like the authors to review the requireemnts in 4855 and ensure that all are
addressed in either 3640 or 4855.  Is this an appropriate request?

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
change in the "Audio Media Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/audio/

OLD:

audio
mpeg4-generic [RFC3640]

NEW:

audio
mpeg4-generic [RFC3640][RFC-avt-rtp-mps-02]

(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 Document Shepherd is Tom Taylor. I have personally reviewed
this version of the document and believe it is 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?

The document has been available to the Working Group since last
May. The only comments in that time were from Colin Perkins and
Tom Taylor. These comments were resolved. There were no comments
on the media types list regarding the addition of new parameters
to the audio/mpeg-generic media type. While the lack of comment
could be a source of concern in some cases, the Shepherd believes
that in this case it springs from the fact that the document was
well-written in the first place.

(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.

(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 specific concerns. No IPR disclosures. Note that there is
a dependency on this document in DVB, ATSC and 3GPP.

(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?

General WG silence, as noted in (1.b).

(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.

(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?

No nits displayed by Datatracker. One missing "t" in
"confidentiality" on line 448 (Security Considerations section).
The new parameters were presented to the media types list
with no comment.

(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 OK. IDnits concerned about references to ISO
documents, but these are properly normative.

(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?

IANA section OK.

(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?

Not applicable.

(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
This memo describes extensions for the RTP payload format defined in
RFC3640 for the transport of MPEG Surround multi-channel audio.
Additional Media Type parameters are defined to signal backwards
compatible transmission inside an MPEG-4 audio elementary stream. In
addition a layered transmission scheme without using the MPEG-4
systems framework is presented to transport an MPEG Surround
elementary stream via RTP in parallel with an RTP stream containing
the downmixed audio data.


Working Group Summary
There were no objections to making this a WG item, and limited
comments during WGLC.

Document Quality
Colin Perkins was the primary reviewer during Working Group
Last Call. The proposed parameters were presented for Media Type
review in a message dated 19/11/2008. DVB, ATSC, and 3GPP have
dependencies on this document.
(end)