Subject: [avtext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:43:57 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Content Splicing for RTP Sessions
	Author(s)       : Jinwei Xia
	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-07.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2012-02-19

   This memo outlines RTP splicing.  Splicing is a process that replaces
   the content of the main multimedia stream with other multimedia
   content, and delivers the substitutive multimedia content to receiver
   for a period of time.  This memo provides some RTP splicing use
   cases, then we enumerate a set of requirements and analyze whether an
   existing RTP level middlebox can meet these requirements, at last we
   provide concrete guidelines for how the chosen middlebox works to
   handle RTP splicing.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-07.txt

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:25:08 +0100

WG,

I have requested publication of this document now.

The writeup for the document is as follows:

Shepherd writeup for Content Splicing for RTP Sessions
(draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-07) requested to be published
as Informational RFC.

  (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?

        Magnus Westerlund is the document shepherd.

  (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 has had okay number of reviews in the WG. There has
        been no review outside of the WG to my knowledge. No significant
        concern over the amount of review.

  (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.

  (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 and no IPR disclosure has been submitted.

  (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?

        There was significant amount of discussion around the direction
        of the approach that is recommended. This resulted in the end
        a strong consensus and many active WG participants has particpated
        in that part.

  (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 Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and 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?

        Yes.

  (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].

        Yes, it has a split list. Although that isn't necessary considering
        it is an informational document.

  (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?

        Yes, it is correct.

  (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 formal language.

  (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
        This memo outlines how to perform RTP splicing.  Splicing is a
process
        that replaces the content of the main multimedia stream with other
        multimedia content, and delivers the substitutive multimedia
content to
        receiver for a period of time.  This memo provides some RTP
splicing use
        cases, then we enumerate a set of requirements and analyze
whether an
        existing RTP level middlebox can meet these requirements, at
last we
        provide concrete guidelines for how the chosen middlebox works
to handle
        RTP splicing.

     Working Group Summary
        This document has firm WG consensus behind it and has been
        advequate reviewed.

     Document Quality
        The sheperd is unaware of any specific implementation but
        expect this functionality to be implemented in the field.
        How well they follow the proposed method is unknown.

On 2012-02-20 04:43, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------