--snip--

...

However, reading the attached email from Colin, I understand that this review is 'required' for WGLC. This means that whether this review is "no comments" or there are in fact comments, I (we) have to know in order to progress the document. Specially this part (original attached):

"In future, as new RTP payload formats are developed, we will require expert review of the media type registration as part of the working group last call process. Please contact the chairs for guidance on the procedure for this review, when you believe your draft is ready for working group last call. We will not forward drafts to the IESG for publication **unless they have received such review.**"

This is an AVT policy, to avoid last minute confusion and problems such as we had with the RTP payload format for text conversation; it's not a wider IETF requirement. If no comments result after a reasonable time period, so be it.

Oops! my mistake, I really had "AVT" written while drafting the email, must have deleted it... I understand that these rules are restricted to AVT, but from your email it is not clear that no response from the IETF-TYPES after a "reasonable time period" (whatever that is, probably >= 2 weeks) is also fine for proceeding with WGLC. Anyhow, Martin Duerst did have a comment which I answered. So I'll wait for that to be solved. José

Colin