Subject: [payload] Request for publication of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac-04

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:52:57 +0200

Hi Robert,

I'd like to request that draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac-04, RTP Payload Format for
the iSAC Codec. 

I've reviewed the draft in detail, and the Payload working group was given
the opportunity to comment. The draft is documented in sufficient detail to
meet the registration requirements, and doesn't conflict with other work in
Payload. Accordingly, please consider it for publication.

Thanks,

Roni Even

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

This is a standard track RFC.  This is a typical RTP payload specification.

The title page header indicates it.

(2) 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:

iSAC is a proprietary wideband speech and audio codec developed by Global IP
Solutions (now part of Google), suitable for use in Voice over IP
applications.  This document describes the payload format for iSAC generated
bit streams within a Real-Time Protocol (RTP) packet. Also included here are
the necessary details for the use of iSAC with the Session Description
Protocol (SDP).

Working Group Summary:

A previous draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac-02 went through a working group last
call. There were comments and the current version draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac-04
addresses all the comments. There was no need for a second WGLC.

Document Quality:

This is a payload specification for the iSAC codec and it was reviewed by a
couple of people in the payload working group.

Personnel:

Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is
Robert Sparks.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in version -02 during
the WG last call. He has since reviewed the changes in the current version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed? 

This document got a decent review for an RTP payload specification by people
who had interest in this work. Some of them were done when it was still an
individual draft.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP,
XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

No need for any such review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
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. 

No concerns

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, the shepherd has confirmed with all authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

No IPR

(9) 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? 

A typical payload specification will be interesting to some of the WG
participants who have interest in using this codec with RTP. As such this
document had a review from individuals who have such interest and
contributed text that was added after the WGLC.

(10) 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 publicly available.) 

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

No real ID nits in this document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

The media subtype registration was reviewed by the shepherd and a request to
review was sent to ietf-type mailing list.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00464.html . No
comments.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? 

yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion? 

no

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure. 

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary. 

No change to other documents already published.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226). 

This document adds a new media subtype iSAC. The document shepherd verified
that the registration template is according to RFC 4855 and RFC4288 and that
is consistent with the body of the document. 

No new IANA registries are defined.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. 

No formal language.