Subject: [AVT] Request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-smtpe-rtp-10.txt

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:10:54 -0400

This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-smtpe-rtp-10.txt as a 
Standards Track document. The PROTO writeup is attached.

Tom Taylor
As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 1, 2007. 

This is the PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-avt-smtpe-rtp-10.txt.

(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?

	Tom Taylor <[email-masked]> is the Document Shepherd. 
	I have personally reviewed this version of the document and consider it 	ready for forwarding.

(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? 

	This draft grew out of a discussion of the transport of SMPTE time codes
      in January, 2005.
      Initial draft, draft-singer-smpte-rtp-00.txt (2005-2-15), used RTCP
      transport only. Concern that discontinuities could cause SMPTE markings 
      carried in RTCP to get out of synch with the RTP timestamps. Conclusion
      was that SMPTE information should also be carried in the RTP stream.

      Further discussion of requirements in Feb-March 2005. Concluded that
      a flexible header mechanism would be desirable. At the same time, the
      work was put out to SMPTE TV Systems Technology Committee for review. 

      draft-singer-smpte-rtp-01.txt issued 2005-6-1 along with 
      draft-singer-rtp-hdrext-00.txt, describing a general header extension
      mechanism (currently with the AD).

      Agreed at the Paris meeting (IETF 63) and confirmed on the list that
      these should be Working Group documents.

      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-00.txt published 2005-8-16
         Comments by Colin Perkins.
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-01.txt published 2006-2-9
         One of two open issues resolved through discussion with
         members of the SMPTE, who reviewed the work.
         Author's proposal for the other one agreed on list.
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-02.txt 2006-6-7
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-03.txt 2006-6-15
         Colin Perkins comments, mainly editorial, 2006-6-23.
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-04.txt 2006-8-16
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-05.txt 2006-10-19
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-06.txt 2006-12-6
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-07.txt 2006-12-15
         This last reflects nits review of related hdrext draft.

      WGLC announced 2006-12-18, to close 2007-1-14.  No comments received. 
      Reviews requested 2007-1-8 from members of the AVT review team). 
      Ladan Gharai responded 2007-02-07.
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-08.txt 2007-02-14 in response to these
      comments.
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-09.txt 2007-02-23
      draft-ietf-avt-smpte-rtp-10.txt 2007-02-26
         Nit fixes.

(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. 

	All OK.

(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? 

	Many of the WG's active members have addressed it. On that basis, 
	consensus appears to be strong.

(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? 

	The document passes idnits. The following nits exist:
	- extra 's' in esssentially' in the second paragraph of page 6
      - the reference to hdrext needs to be up-versioned to -12
	- in accordance with the IANA Considerations section of 
	draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext-12.txt, the document must indicate that it 
	updates draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext-12.txt

(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]. 

	All OK.

(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 [RFC2434]. 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? 

	All OK except the third nit identified under (1.g).

(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 document describes a method to inform RTP clients when RTP
   packets are transmitted at a time other than their 'nominal'
   transmission time.  It also provides a mechanism to provide improved
   inter-arrival jitter reports from the clients, that take into account
   the reported transmission times. 

Working Group Summary

   This RTP header extension was first defined within draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext
   as an initial application of the RTP header extension mechanism that draft
   defines. As a result of WG discussion in July, 2006, it was moved to a 
   separate draft. Additional discussion resulted in further changes up through 
   Working Group Last Call. There is a strong Working Group consensus in favour 
   of the present document. 

Document Quality 

   Solicited review comments from Qiaobing Xie and Ron Frederick provided a 
   final polish to the document. 

Personnel 

   Tom Taylor is the Document Shepherd for this document? 

   Cullen Jennings is the Responsible Area Director? 
   No IANA expert is needed. 

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