I'm sure most of us know about this already. I suspect this means we can regard it as relatively stable, so it might be worth including in our considerations. Harald -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [AVTCORE] Request to publish draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-06 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:28:33 +0200 From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> To: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, "'Robert Sparks'" <rjsparks@nostrum.com> CC: 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org, avt@ietf.org Hi Robert, I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-06, Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP, be published as Standard Track RFC. I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the AVTCore working group was given the opportunity to comment. The draft 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. It went through Working Group last call 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 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. No IPR disclosure related to this document or the previous individual draft and AVT version was filed. (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 the members of the AVTCore WG. (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 </id-info/checklist.html> 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? There is one warning that is relevant: == There are 3 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 5735 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. They are intentional as we have an SDP example of an end-point that is NATed with the address 10.0.1.4. Both the o= and the ICE candidate list thus contains such an 10.0.1.4 address. Thus I don't see an issue of using private address ranges in the example. (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 are no normative references to documents which are not in RFC state (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? The document shepherd verified that the SDP signaling examples in section 12 are correct. (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 memo specifies how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) can be used with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) running over UDP, using RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) as a feedback mechanism. It defines a new RTCP Extended Report (XR) block for periodic ECN feedback, a new RTCP transport feedback message for timely reporting of congestion events, and a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) extension used in the optional initialization method using Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE). Signalling and procedures for negotiation of capabilities and initialization methods are also defined." 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 were no controversy about the proposed solution and there was consensus on all discussion points 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. There was interest in this work by other standard bodies like 3GPP and ITU-T SG16 who need to reference it. The SDP attributes and ICE options defined in the document were sent to review in MMUSIC on September 30, 2011