Guidelines for Use of the RTP Monitoring Framework
RFC 6792

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -18)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-12 for -19)
No email
send info
Please consider expanding "RTP" in the first line of the Abstract.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-25)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing all my points. 

For the record, I want to stress I didn't request, part of my review, the addition of the following sentence (added in version 22) part of my review:

   New RTCP XR report block definitions should not define new performance
   metrics, but should rather refer to metrics defined elsewhere

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -18)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -18)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-09 for -18)
No email
send info
  The authors report than changes are pending to handle the editorial
  comments raised in the Gen-ART Review by Meral Shirazipour on
  31-Jul-2012.  I hope the updated I-D will be posted prior to IESG
  approval of this document.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-11 for -19)
No email
send info
Saying "encryption of the monitoring report is recommended"
seems a bit trite. I'm not asking that you define precisely how
to secure all possible RTP deployment choices, but perhaps the
right thing to do here is to say that these metrics SHOULD be
secured to the same extent as the RTP flows that they measure.
(Or some such.)

How could you encrypt traffic for a 3rd party monitor without
knowing who that monitor is? That seems somewhat impossible
in general. So, as pointed out by the secdir review [1] the
document should at least recognise the problem and maybe 
describe some environments where it can in fact be solved.

   [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03465.html

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -19)
No email
send info