Subject: [AVT] Changes in response to IESG review of RTP

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:07:36 -0800 (PST)

My main topic for discussion in the "Introduction and document status"
item at the top of the AVT agenda is the set of changes to the RTP
spec and RTP/AVP profile resulting from the exchange of email on the
set of issues I sent out as separate messages in January.  The results
are in

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12.ps
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13.ps

Actually, I hope that everyone finds the changes I have made to be
a satisfactory exposition of the results of the email exchange.  If
not, please speak up in email or at the meeting.

I have written up a detailed accounting of these changes to facilitate
the IESG's review and (I hope) acceptance of them.  I sent the
following message to the IESG.  You are welcome to look at the package
of files I mention at the end.

                                                        -- Steve

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:41:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP

Dear IESG members:

You may have observed that the following updated drafts have been
posted:

    draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12
    draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13

These drafts update -11 and -12, respectively, which have already been
"tentatively approved" by the IESG for publication as Draft Standards.
I realize that the IESG normally does not allow drafts to be updated
after they have been reviewed and approved because you do not want to
have to review the revised drafts.  However, in this case I received
permission from our responsible AD, Allison, to submit revised drafts
because the set of changes that I believe should be made is large
enough that trying to pass them to the RFC Editor as "RFC Editor
notes" is not appropriate.  There are three reasons for this:

  - There were several changes that the IESG requested.

  - The drafts have been under review for more than a year (this is
    not a complaint -- some of that time is mine) and during that
    period there have been several questions from implementers that
    pointed out places where clarification of the text was needed.
    I'd like to have the document be the best it can as it goes to
    Draft Standard.

  - There are changes in several places where I have tried to
    carefully scrub down these documents according to ID-nits and
    rfc2223bis.  There are two examples that I think will let you see
    why I wanted to handle these revisions through new I-D's:

      - I have changed the order of a few end-sections.  By doing that
        in the source, all the refereces are correctly updated.

      - I have fixed all the places where there were not two spaces
        after the end of a sentence.

Marking all of these in RFC-Editor-note format would not be pleasant
or efficient for me, the IESG, or the RFC Editor.  It would be
unreasonable, I think, to have a long list of RFC-Editor-notes in the
message announcing approval to the ietf list and the RFC Editor.

To minimize the effort required for you to review these changes, I am
providing a package of files to allow you to easily satisfy yourselves
that the changes are appropriate:

  - For the differences of substance, I am providing a description and
    motivation in RFC-Editor-note format.  This should be all that the
    IESG as a whole needs to consider.

  - To let you verify that I have not tried to sneak in any changes of
    substance other than those I describe, I have separated the
    changes into a series of "layers" (in the Photoshop sense) so that
    it is easy to see the differences between each successive pair of
    layers using diff or wdiff.  I have provided the diff or wdiff
    output as well, but you may also run those programs for yourself.
    I assume it would be sufficient for just one IESG member to
    perform this verification.  I know there is at least one wdiff
    aficionado on the IESG.

This package of files is available in a tarball at

    ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/rtp-diffs.tgz

Since this tarball contains multiple copies of each draft, it is
1.1MB.  Please see the files README-rtp.txt and README-profile.txt for
a listing of the layers and the changes they contain.  I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                                        -- Steve

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