Subject: [AVT] PROTO writeup for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:52:22 -0500

(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 is Document Shepherd. I have reviewed this version of the document. I 
believe that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG 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 thorough discussion and review from WG members. Aspects 
relating to SDP have been presented to MMUSIC for comment.

     (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 personal concerns. No IPR disclosures found.

     (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?

When the initial proposals were presented (end of 2006), they provoked 
considerable concern and discussion because they violated current RFC 3550 
rules. Over the two years since, agreement has been reached on the acceptable 
modifications to RFC 3550 rules and the concerns that have to be documented 
along with them. The current document has strong WG 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?

OK, except that boilerplate is not the latest.

     (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].

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 [RFC5226]. 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?

OK

     (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?

     (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 memo discusses benefits and issues that arise when allowing RTCP
    packets to be transmitted with reduced size.  The size can be reduced
    if the rules on how to create compound packets outlined in RFC3550
    are removed or changed.  Based on that analysis this memo defines
    certain changes to the rules to allow feedback messages to be sent as
    reduced-size RTCP packets under certain conditions when using the RTP
    AVPF profile (RFC 4585).  This document updates [RFC3550], [RFC3711]
    and [RFC4585].

           Working Group Summary
When the initial proposals for reduced-size RTCP reports were presented (end of 
2006), they provoked considerable concern and discussion because they violated 
current RFC 3550 rules. Over the two years since, agreement has been reached on 
the acceptable modifications to RFC 3550 rules and the concerns that have to be 
documented along with them. The current document has strong WG consensus.

           Document Quality
Colin Perkins and Randell Jesup provided oversight and insight throughout the 
evolution of this document.

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