Subject: [AVT] Publication request -- draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mps-02.txt

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:05:08 -0500

This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-mps-02.txt, RTP Payload 
Format for Elementary Streams with MPEG Surround multi- channel audio. The 
corresponding AVT WG milestone was "Submit RTP Payload Format for Elementary 
Streams with MPEG Surround multi-channel audio for Proposed Standard", due last 
August.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd 
Write-Up. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

     (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 Tom Taylor. I have personally reviewed
           this version of the document and believe it 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 been available to the Working Group since last
           May. The only comments in that time were from Colin Perkins and
           Tom Taylor. These comments were resolved. There were no comments
           on the media types list regarding the addition of new parameters
           to the audio/mpeg-generic media type. While the lack of comment
           could be a source of concern in some cases, the Shepherd believes
           that in this case it springs from the fact that the document was
           well-written in the first place.

     (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.

           No specific concerns. No IPR disclosures. Note that there is
           a dependency on this document in DVB, ATSC and 3GPP.

     (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?

           General WG silence, as noted in (1.b).

     (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?

           No nits displayed by Datatracker. One missing "t" in
           "confidentiality" on line 448 (Security Considerations section).
           The new parameters were presented to the media types list
           with no comment.

     (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 OK. IDnits concerned about references to ISO
           documents, but these are properly normative.

     (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?

           IANA section 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?

           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 memo describes extensions for the RTP payload format defined in
   	    RFC3640 for the transport of MPEG Surround multi-channel audio.
   	    Additional Media Type parameters are defined to signal backwards
   	    compatible transmission inside an MPEG-4 audio elementary stream. In
   	    addition a layered transmission scheme without using the MPEG-4
   	    systems framework is presented to transport an MPEG Surround
   	    elementary stream via RTP in parallel with an RTP stream containing
   	    the downmixed audio data.

           Working Group Summary
              There were no objections to making this a WG item, and limited
              comments during WGLC.

           Document Quality
              Colin Perkins was the primary reviewer during Working Group
              Last Call. The proposed parameters were presented for Media Type
              review in a message dated 19/11/2008. DVB, ATSC, and 3GPP have
              dependencies on this document.
(end)