Subject: [AVTCORE] request to publish draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:16:07 +0200

Hi Robert,

I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00,
Port Mapping Between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions, be published as
Standard Track RFC. 

I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the AVT / AVTCore working groups were
given the opportunity to comment. The draft is required for RAMS, and
doesn't conflict with other work in AVTCore. Accordingly, please consider it
for publication.

Thanks,

Roni Even

(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 Roni Even. I have reviewed 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 is the result of an effort done by key WG members in order to
address a problem encountered in RAMS (Rapid Acquisition for RTP) which was
recognized as a general problem that requires a solution. The current
approach reflects that consensus in the WG. It went through two Working
Group last calls and people had enough time to review it. The document
shepherd feels comfortable with the review it got.

Note that the document started at AVT and was at -11 revision before it was
moved to the new AVTCore WG.

  (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

(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? 

The document has strong consensus for key members of the AVT/AVTCore WGs.

  (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 the Checklist and idnits
<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 idnits tool reports a comment which is not correct about the latest
version of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp which is 17 and not 16.

  (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 are split. There is a normative reference to
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames which is in the RFC Editor queue.

(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?

The IANA consideration section exists and is inline with the body of the
document.

  (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? 

No such sections

  (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 

        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 

        and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 

        an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 

        or introduction. 

"This document presents a port mapping solution that allows RTP

   receivers to choose their own ports for an auxiliary unicast session

   in RTP applications using both unicast and multicast services.  The

   solution provides protection against denial-of-service or packet

   amplification attacks that could be used to cause one or more RTP

   packets to be sent to a victim client."

Working Group Summary 

        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 

        example, was there controversy about particular points or 

        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 

        rough? 

There was a discussion if to use a token or cookie for the solution. The
initial solution was based on a cookie but after a technical discussion in
IETF78 and mailing list call for consensus the token based solution was
selected. There was a consensus to use this approach.

Document Quality 

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 

        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 

        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 

        merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 

        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 

        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 

        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 

        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 

        review, on what date was the request posted? 

The document shepherd is not aware of current implementations but the
vendors of RAMS solution will support