Subject: [AVTCORE] Request for publication of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:07 +0300

Hi Richard,

I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09, Inter-destination Media
Synchronization using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), be published as
Standard Track RFC. 

I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the AVTCore working group was given
the opportunity to comment. The draft is documented in sufficient detail to
meet the registration requirements, and doesn't conflict with other work in
AVTCore. Accordingly, please consider it for publication.

Thanks,

Roni Even

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

This is a standard track RFC defining new RTCP packets and procedures for
synchronizing media between multiple sites.

The title page header indicates it.

(2) 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 defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packet Type and RTCP
Extended Report (XR) Block Type to be used for achieving Inter-Destination
Media Synchronization (IDMS).  IDMS is the process of synchronizing playout
across multiple geographically distributed media receivers. Typical use
cases in which IDMS is usefull are social TV, shared  service control (i.e.
applications where two or more geographically  separated users are watching
a media stream together), distance  learning, networked video walls,
networked loudspeakers, etc.

Working Group Summary:

This document went through a working group last call. There were comments
and the document was updated to resolve all comments. The work started in
ETSI and since it have to do with RTCP it was brought to the IETF AVTCore
WG. The last issue that took some time was to update the ETSI document
clarifying that the change control will be at the IETF.

Document Quality:

The document got good reviews from AVTcore members.  

Personnel:

Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is
Richard Barnes.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in all the versions
including the last one 09.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed? 

This document got good review by mutiple people from AVTcore and all
comments were addressed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP,
XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

No need for any such review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
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. 

No concerns

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, the shepherd has confirmed with all authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

No IPR disclosure

(9) 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 was a strong consensus to start this work at the IETF when it was
brought. Multiple people contributed to the work and as a result the WG
identified two new work items that are addressed in other new documents
which are currently in progress.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

No ID nits in this document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? 

yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion? 

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-03 that will
start WGLC very soon.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure. 

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary. 

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226). 

This document defines a new extension URI to the RTP Compact Header
Extensions sub-registry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
Parameters registry. The registration was reviewed by the document shepherd
and it follows the registration requirements. 

No new IANA registries are defined.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. 

There is an ABNF definition for using the new RTCP packet using RFC3264
offer answer. This is common for any new RTCP packe