Subject: [AVT] PROTO Writeup and Request for Publication for draft-ietf-avt-rfc3047-bis-08.txt

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:31:16 -0400

(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?

           Tom Taylor is the Document Shepherd. I have read this version
           of the draft 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 has had solid review within the AVT Working Group.
           Media types review was requested and xxxxxxxx

     (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 disclosures have been posted.

     (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?

           Consensus appears to be solid.

     (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 problem.

     (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
           document satisfies all ID nits? (See
           http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

           Media type review was requested 22/10/08. Mark Baker, a
           regular reviewer, declared that the registration looks OK.
           There has been no other comment.

           The IDnits tool has one complaint, about an FQDN not
           compliant with RFC 2606. This seems to be a false positive.
           Not sure if it is the repeated reference to G722.1 or the
           contact name in the media type registration that is misleading
           the tool.

     (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].

           All OK.

     (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?

           IANA Considerations section exists. It consists of the
           audio/G7221 media type re-registration.

     (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?

           Not applicable. SDP example fragment is valid by inspection.

     (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
            International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation G.722.1
   	   is a wide-band audio codec.  This document describes the payload
   	   format for including G.722.1 generated bit streams within an RTP
   	   packet.  The document also describes the syntax and semantics of the
   	   SDP parameters needed to support G.722.1 audio codec.

           Working Group Summary
              The G722.1 codec can change bit rate in mid-stream. Dealing
              with this successfully was an issue for discussion during
              WGLC. The resolution was to require each bit rate to have
              its own payload type.

           Document Quality
              Magnus Westerlund performed the initial review of the
              document. Aurelien Sollaud also provided careful reviews,
              particularly during WGLC.

(end)

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt