[Ballot discuss]
I would like to clarify the statement made about the document that it 'simplifies the usage of previously registered MIME media sub-types like 'image/t38' [RFC3362] that are used as SDP media descriptors for T.38 [T38].' In what way it 'simplifies'? Should this document update RFC 3362?

[Ballot discuss]
Overall this is a fine document. There are two issues I'd like to chat about.

Section 3 appears to limit the 'image' media type to still images. Would that exclude media such as animated GIFs or .mov files? If so, why?

Section 4 claims that there are no security considerations beyond those described in RFC 4566. Yet it is known that images can contain malicious code or trigger attacks such as buffer overflows and code injection. As far as I can see, such attacks are not covered by RFC 4566. Perhaps such attacks are not possible with T.38 media, but the 'image' media type could be used to communicate other kinds of image data. Does this specification need to take such attacks into consideration?

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
IANA Action that needs to be completed.

In the media section of the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Parameters registry located at:

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

a new 'image' token will be registered as follows:

Type SDP Name Reference
---- ------------------ ---------
media image [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-salgueiro-mmusic-image-iana-registration-08.txt> (IANA Registration of the 'image' Media Type for the Session Description Protocol (SDP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Registration of the 'image' Media Type for the Session
  Description Protocol (SDP)'
  <draft-salgueiro-mmusic-image-iana-registration-08.txt> as a 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 2011-09-06. 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


  This document describes the usage of the 'image' media type and
  registers it with IANA as a top-level media type for the Session
  Description Protocol (SDP).  This media type is primarily used by SDP
  to negotiate and establish T.38 media streams.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-mmusic-image-iana-registration/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-mmusic-image-iana-registration/


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

PROTO writeup

  (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?

Miguel A. Garcia (Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com) is the
document shepherd. I have personally reviewed version -08 and
earlier versions of this document. I believe this version os
ready for requesting publication.

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

The document has been reviewed by Kevin P. Fleming, Bert
Greevenboch, Keith Drage, myself, and other people in the
MMUSIC mailing list. The document has passed an
unofficial WGLC (since it is not a WG document) with several
people agreeing on the current text.

I do no thave any concerns with the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed.

  (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, I do not have any concern.

  (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here.

No, I do not have any concern.

  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

The community supports the document, as it has been
demonstrated in the list. External communities, namely CIAJ
(Communications and Information Network Assotiation of Japan)
support this work.

  (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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?

Yes, I have verified the ID nits. The document, through, does
not require any MIB doctor, media type, or URI type reviews.

  (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].

Yes, references are split into normative and informative. All
the normative references are made to published RFCs. There are
not downward references.

  (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 suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

Yes, I have verified that the IANA considerations section
exists and is consistent with the body of the document. The
IANA registries are clearly identified. The document does not
propose a new registry, but merely adding a new value to an
existing registry.

  (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?

There are no such sections in this document.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

        This document describes the usage of the 'image' media type
  and registers it with IANA as a top-level media type for the
  Session Description Protocol (SDP).  This media type is
  primarily used by SDP to negotiate and establish T.38 media
  streams.

    Working Group Summary

    While this is not an official document of the MMUSIC working
        group, the document has been reviewed in the MMUSIC WG. It is
        widely supported by its members and external bodies. Has
        received substantial review, including an unofficial
        WGLC. There is consensus to proceed forward with the
        document. Since this document is registering a missing token
        in an existing registry, it was decided to expedite the
        document in the sake of simplicity and speedness.


    Document Quality   

        There are implementations and RFCs documenting the usage of
        the "image" media type in SDP. This document adds it to the
        SDP parameters registry.