Subject: [AVT] Request to publish draft-ietf-avt-vorbis-rtp-06.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:48:24 +0100

The Audio/Video Transport working group requests that the RTP Payload  
Format for Vorbis Encoded Audio <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vorbis-06.txt> be  
published as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Document Shepherd Write-Up:

    (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?

The document shepherd is Colin Perkins. He believes this version is  
ready for publication.

    (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?

The document has had adequate review.

    (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 concerns.

    (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.

No concerns. No IPR disclosures.

    (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?

There is solid consensus.

    (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 satisfies all ID nits. A media type review was conducted.

    (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].

References have been split. There are no normative references to  
internet drafts, and no normative down-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 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?

The IANA considerations section exists, and is consistent with the  
rest of the draft. Registrations are in the appropriate 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?

n/a

    (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
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

    This document describes an RTP payload format for transporting  
Vorbis
    encoded audio.  It details the RTP encapsulation mechanism for raw
    Vorbis data and details the delivery mechanisms for the decoder
    probability model, referred to as a codebook and other setup
    information.

    Also included within this memo are media type registrations, and the
    details necessary for the use of Vorbis with the Session Description
    Protocol (SDP).

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?   
For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?

The RTP payload format for Vorbis has been under discussion since the  
50th IETF meeting and has changed author several times (which has  
delayed its progress). The main technical issue has been transport of  
configuration headers: Vorbis doesn't use statically configured code  
books, and must receive a configuration header containing appropriate  
code books for a stream before it can begin decoding. This is  
problematic for RTP sessions using unreliable transports with limited  
packet size, and required definition of both in-band and out-of-band  
access methods for configuration headers, to ensure the configured  
data can be retrieved.

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?   
Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive  
issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media  
Type
              review, on what date was the request posted?

I understand that there are a number of implementations.

The media type review request was posted 11 June 2007. During the  
media type review, Bjoern Hoehrmann and Chris Lilley expressed  
concern that this draft registers the audio/vorbis media type for use  
only with RTP. We believe this concern is misplaced, since Vorbis  
data must be framed (the application/ogg container provides the  
framing for non-RTP use) and the registration of an RTP-only media  
type is consistent with current practice, as documented in RFC 4855.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  
the
              Responsible Area Director?

Colin Perkins is the document shepherd. Cullen Jennings is a  
responsible area director.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

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