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

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:34:13 -0500

This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-05, 
"Application Mechanism for maintaining alive the Network Address Translator 
(NAT) mappings associated to RTP flows", as a BCP. This corresponds to AVT WG 
milestone "Aug 2008  Submit draft on Mechanisms to keep NAT bindings for RTP 
flows alive for BCP".

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?

           Tom Taylor is Document Shepherd. I have read 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 well reviewed, by participants in the AVT,
           BEHAVE, and MMUSIC Working Groups. It began in 2007 as a BEHAVE work
           proposal with a broader scope, but was eventually focussed on
           RTP keepalive in the absence of ICE support.

     (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 concern.

     (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 WG consensus. As evidenced by the Acknowledgements
           section, a number of people provided comments that helped the
           document take shape along the way.

     (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?

           ID nits is confused about the presence of the RFC 2119
           boilerplate text, but it is there as section 2. All OK
           otherwise.

     (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 [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?

           All OK. The proposed rtp-keepalive SDP parameter drew no
           comments from MMUSIC.

     (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 lists the different mechanisms that enable applications
   	   using Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) to maintain their RTP
   	   Network Address Translator (NAT) mappings alive.  It also makes a
   	   recommendation for a preferred mechanism.  This document is not
   	   applicable to Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) agents.

           Working Group Summary
              This document began in 2006 as a proposed BEHAVE work item with
              broader scope. The scope was refined after discussion between
              BEHAVE, MMUSIC, and AVT Working Groups to that indicated above.
              The rtp-keepalive SDP parameter was added by direction of the
              AVT Chair when no comments were received either for or against
              that proposal.

           Document Quality
              This document was shaped by comments from a number of contributors,
              as listed in the Acknoledgements section. As a general application
              guide, it is expected to have broad implementation.

(end)