[R-C] Fwd: [AVTCORE] Request to publish draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-06

[Harald Alvestrand]

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 at gmail.com>
To: 	<iesg-secretary at ietf.org>, "'Robert Sparks'" <rjsparks at nostrum.com>
CC: 	'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>, 
draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp.all at tools.ietf.org, avt at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtp-congestion/attachments/20120307/3d4d7151/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtp-congestion/attachments/20120307/3d4d7151/attachment-0001.ksh>