Subject: [AVT] PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-08.txt

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:10:20 -0500

PROTO Writeup For draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-08.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 PROTO shepherd for this document. I 
have personally reviewed this version of the document. It is ready for 
forwarding to the IESG, subject to some minor comments documented in a separate 
message. These can be dealt with at suitable stage in the post-WGLC process.

    (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 good review with comments from both well-known experts of 
the WG and interested parties not normally visible on the WG E-mail list.

    (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 concerns.

Three IPR declarations: 105, 485, and 502 -- were filed for the predecessor 
document, RFC 3984. No new disclosures have been filed for this draft. Four 
disclosures: 736, 832, 852, and 996 -- have been filed relating to 
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc. These disclosures have incidental relevance to the 
present draft.

    (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?

WG consensus is solid.

    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
           discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
           does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
           the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

All OK.

    (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's IANA
           Considerations 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 the Document
           Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
           the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

All 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?

Only applicable content is SDP example fragments. No automated checking of these 
examples was done.

    (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 an RTP Payload format for the ITU-T
    Recommendation H.264 video codec and the technically identical
    ISO/IEC International Standard 14496-10 video codec, excluding the
    Scalable Video Coding (SVC) extension and the Multivew Video Coding
    extension, for which the RTP payload formats are defined elsewhere.
    The RTP payload format allows for packetization of one or more
    Network Abstraction Layer Units (NALUs), produced by an H.264 video
    encoder, in each RTP payload.  The payload format has wide
    applicability, as it supports applications from simple low bit-rate
    conversational usage, to Internet video streaming with interleaved
    transmission, to high bit-rate video-on-demand.

    This memo obsoletes RFC 3984.  Changes from RFC 3984 are summarized
    in section 18.  Issues on backward compatibility to RFC 3984 are
    discussed in section 17.

           Working Group Summary

The intitial Working Group Last Call produced a number of comments that were 
successfully resolved.  Subsequent to the initial Working Group Last Call 
interested parties suggested that it would be valuable to support the 
possibility of asymmetrical operation, where the two ends send at different 
levels. This capability was added to the specification. The process was dragged 
out by a lengthy debate over whether to add the ability for a sender to indicate 
its maximum capabilities. In the end the Chair had to cut off that debate by 
ruling that there was no consensus to add that feature. The document had a 
successful second WG Last Call. Immediately before this request was issued, some 
potential consumers of the specification had comments that suggested some text 
needs clarification. The change required is minor, so it is being left to be 
handled as part of IETF Last Call.

           Document Quality

This document updates RFC 3984, which has a number of implementations not 
necessarily fully conformant to that specification. The document introduces new 
features that RFC 3984 implementations do not support. It is clear from list 
discussion that implementations of the new document are in the serious planning 
stage.

Randell Jesup was brought on board as an additional author at the end, but 
before that he contributed a great deal to the process of review and the 
discussion of the document.

The Media Type review was posted 10 November 2009. There was no response.

           Personnel

Tom Taylor is PROTO Shepherd. Cullen Jennings and Robert Sparks are the 
responsible Area Directors.