Subject: [AVT] Publication request for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:47 +0100

I have requested publication for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02 as proposed standard.

Following is the document shepherd writeup for this document.

I draw your attention to one extra requirement inserted in the document as a result of the document shepherd review. (Diff can be seen at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02.txt ). The new requirement is in section 4.2 and states:

   Other methods, beyond the
   three methods listed above, are not compliant with this specification
   and SHOULD NOT be used.

One other normative statement was removed as it was a duplicate of an earlier requirement.

regards

Keith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02 " Guidelines for 
Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)" as 
proposed standard.

  (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 for this document is Keith Drage.

The document shepherd has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for 
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

Document history:

-	draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-00 was submitted 14th April 2010 and 
expires 16th October 2011;
-	draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 5th May 2010 and 
expires 6th November 2011;
-	draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02 was submitted 24th May 2010 and 
expires 25th November 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-00 was submitted 17th June 2010 and 
expires 19th December 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 26th August 2010 and 
expires 27th February 2011;
-	draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-01 was submitted 10th November 2010 
and expires 14th May 2011;

Call for adoption of baseline as WG item was made 4th June 2010 and 
acceptance declared 16th June 2010.

Working group last call was initiated on -00 version on 4th August 2010 
for completion 25th August 2010 as proposed standard. Reviews were 
received from Jonathan Lennox and Keith Drage.

Prior to working group last call,.comments had been received from Qin 
Wu, Dan Wing, Colin Perkins, and Peter Musgrave.

  (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 been adequately reviewed (see 1a above). This is a very simple 
document and numerous substantial comments would not be expected.

  (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? 

There are no such concerns from the document shepherd.

  (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. 

There are no concerns from the document shepherd from this perspective with the 
document.

No IPR disclosures have been made against this document.

  (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?   

>From a reviewing perspective, the interest in this specific document has been 
relatively small, but it forms an essential part of draft-ietf-avt-rapid-
acquisition-for-rtp which has been well and substantially reviewed. It 
is assumed that the interested parties in that document have also reviewed this 
document.

  (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 appeals or areas of conflict or discontent have been identified.

  (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? 

Version 2.12.05 of ID nits identifies no issues.

No other formal reviews outside of the AVT working group are perceived as 
necessary for this document.

  (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]. 

The document does split normative and informative references. All the normative 
references have been reviewed and are correctly allocated as normative 
references. None of these normative references constitute a down reference.

  (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? 

There are no IANA considerations required in this document. It creates no new 
values of any parameter.

  (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? 

There is no formal language in the document.

  (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. 
     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? 
     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 RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a persistent 
transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint.  While the 
Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may change 
if a collision is detected, or when the RTP application is restarted, 
its RTCP CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP endpoints can be 
uniquely identified and associated with their RTP media streams.  For 
proper functionality, RTCP CNAMEs should be unique within the 
participants of an RTP session.  However, the existing guidelines for 
choosing the RTCP CNAME provided in the RTP standard are insufficient 
to achieve this uniqueness.  This memo updates these guidelines to 
allow endpoints to choose unique RTCP CNAMEs.

The document achieved consensus in the AVT working group.