Subject: [AVT] Revised WG last call status

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:47:18 -0800 (PST)

At the end of the IETF meeting in SLC, I send a list of action items
from that meeting to be confirmed on the mailing list.  Included in
that list were several drafts to go to WG last call with an ending
date of January 11 (last Friday).  So, that WG last call period has
ended, but for most of these drafts, nary a peep was heard on the
list.

So, Colin and I have discussed this problem and decided on the
following plan:

********************************************************************
* This last call period is extended indefinitely for each draft    *
* until we get at least one valid review from someone not directly *
* involved with production of the draft (i.e., not an author or    *
* contributor).                                                    *
********************************************************************

We envision a couple of ways this might happen:

  - Working group participants who are interested in seeing a
    particular draft be published as an RFC may be motivated to
    provide such a review.

  - We suggest that authors of different drafts might wish to offer to
    to review each other's drafts, maybe pairwise or maybe in a
    "review ring".

  - I'm sure I needn't point out that more than one review would be
    most welcome.

Obviously, someone could dash off a quick message saying "I read draft
xxx and it looks fine to me" without even taking a look.  We're
depending on the integrity of the WG participants to do better than
that.

In making the review, keep in mind the things the IESG is going to be
considering, as described in

    http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

An aspect of the review, as I discussed in my status report at the
start of the SLC meeting (and as reported in the minutes), is making
sure the language is clear and that there are not English nits --
misspellings, tenses mismatched, extraneous or missing plurals,
extraneous or missing articles, etc.  If the reviewer is willing to
mark all of those for the author, that would be great, but at least
please say whether or not the draft needs such corrections.

The drafts currently in WG last call are:

    Comfort Noise payload format (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cn-04.txt)
        I have reviewed this one and I have a couple of comments I
        will be sending shortly.

    Enhanced CRTP (draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-03.txt)

    Tunneled CRTP (draft-ietf-avt-tcrtp-05.txt)

    Unequal Erasure Protection (draft-ietf-avt-uxp-01.txt)

    Uneven Level Protection (draft-ietf-avt-ulp-03.txt )

    MPEG-4 generic (draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-multisl-03.txt)

    MPEG-4 simple (draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-00.txt)

    Distributed Speech Recognition (draft-ietf-avt-dsr-00.txt)

Two more are supposed to start wg last call after being updated as
discussed at the SLC meeting:

    Extended RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback
        Actually, there was a message from Roni Even about this one,
        but not a reply.

    Secure RTP profile (draft-ietf-avt-srtp-02.txt)
        There was a question from Andre Flöper about this one, which
        implies at least a partial reading, and a reply.

    RTP Payload Format for EVRC, SMV and Frame-Based Vocoders
    (draft-li-avt-vocoder-00.txt)

The action item note I send in December also mentioned a draft that
had already gone to the IESG: the RTP payload format and file storage
format for AMR and AMR-WB audio (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-amr-10.txt).  I
mentioned that the IESG response was that the draft was not written
clearly enough.  Qiaobing Xie stepped up quickly with an offer to
rewrite the draft, and I proposed a schedule for the update that was
to have been finished by Christmas.  However, there has been quite a
bit of discussion among the authors, and I did a detailed review
myself which resulted in suggestions for substantial changes.  As a
consequence, it is appropriate that we have the WG review the revised
draft again before it goes back to the IESG.  You should see a new
draft soon.

Naturally, comments on this last call plan are also welcome.

							-- Steve

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:53:42 -0500

As an additional measure, I would suggest that each draft is explicitly
assigned at least one, preferably up to three, reviewers. These
reviewers can be suggested by the authors and should be explicitly
charged with the task by the chairs. One possibility is to do the
standard trick commonly employed by conferences and journals: if you
submit a paper, you are asked to review other pending papers. Thus, in
our case, authors of other pending drafts could be assigned such
reviews. The reviews should have deadlines of, say, a month.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:22:27 -0500

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:53:42 -0500
> reviews. The reviews should have deadlines of, say, a

Hello;

   I am currently reading

and would be willing to write reviews next week.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

> > * contributor).
> *

---

From: Rex Coldren <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:30:48 -0700

Another way of looking at this is, if nobody but the author (and his or
her organization) is interested in a draft it should probably not be
proceeding toward standard.  We should probably drop any draft
that doesn't get volunteers to review it.  At least that would save
having to deprecate something later when no interoperable
implementations turn up.

Rex

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:37:05 -0800 (PST)

Marshall,

> and would be willing to write reviews next week.

Thank you for that generous offer.

I have not seen other offers.  Have reviewing arrangements for other
drafts been made off-list?
							-- Steve

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:35:13 -0800 (PST)

> having to deprecate something later when no interoperable

I think that is an excellent point.

> reviews. The reviews should have deadlines of, say, a month.

The method I described attempts to achieve the same goal without
putting the chairs in a role of cornering reviewers.  Making the
authors responsible for that task distributes the work, and is
acceptable unless the authors try to subvert the process by a poor
choice of reviewers.  I think we can manage this.  I, too, suggested
that other authors form the fertile pool for selecting reviewers.  I
did not state a deadline; that goes toward Rex's point above.

This does not preclude the chairs from taking action where warranted.

							-- Steve