Subject: [AVT] Request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-05.txt

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:18:15 -0400

This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-05.txt
as a Standards Track RFC. The PROTO writeup is attached.
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-rtp-toffset-05.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? 

	The draft began as a one-paragraph instance of an RTP header extension
	contained in the early versions of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext. In July of
	2006 a number of useful comments were received, in a dialogue that 
	concluded with the issuance of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-toffset-00.txt in 
	August. That drew a few more comments that were further addressed in a new 
	draft a couple of weeks later. The only further update before WGLC was to 
	match the change in the extension identifier mechanism specified in draft-
	ietf-avt-rtp-hdrext. A few more comments were received by solicited review 
	during WGLC (thanks, Qiaobing and Ron) and the Document Shepherd
	identified a couple of nits.

	Given this history, the Document Shepherd feels that
	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.

	The topic dealt with by the draft, separation of contributions to delay
	variation by the source and the intervening network, is very specifically 
	within the scope of the AVT Working Group. IPPM might have an interest 
	given its recent work on delay variation 
	(draft-morton-ippm-delay-var-as-02.txt), but was not consulted. The
	Document Shepherd does not see this as a concern but has forwarded a note
	to IPPM to have a look at the draft.

(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