Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-09.txt

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:08:07 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-09.txt
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2013-11-27
IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-06
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary:  The document is almost ready for publication as a
informational RFC.  I raise minor concerns that should be resolved
before IESG evaluation.

Minor Concerns:  

In section 3.2.1, the document references RFC 6722.  I think it would
be better to reference the Tao web page.

In section 4.1.1, I would reword the last sentence.  I suggest: "The
authors also do one last review of the document immediately prior to
its publication as an RFC to ensure that no errors or formatting
problems have been introduced during the publication process."

This document references a bunch of I-Ds.  Since all of the references
are informative, it would be helpful to know if this document ought to
proceed to publication or whether it should wait until these I-Ds are
published as RFCs.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:32:30 +0100

> be better to reference the Tao web page.

You mean this page: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html ?

And the argument is that the TAO will be up to date, while the RFC just
is snapshot?

I would be inclined to reference both.

> problems have been introduced during the publication process."

That sounds good, no issues with changing to what has been proposed.

> proceed to publication or whether it should wait until these I-Ds are

[I-D.ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory]
              Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP Protocol
              Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
              Security Solution", draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14
              (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-clksrc]
              Williams, A., Gross, K., Brandenburg, R., and H. Stokking,
              "RTP Clock Source Signalling", draft-ietf-avtcore-
              clksrc-07 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-leap-second]
              Gross, K. and R. Brandenburg, "RTP and Leap Seconds",
              draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-05 (work in progress),
              October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options]
              Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "Options for Securing RTP
              Sessions", draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options-07
              (work in progress), October 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-rates]
              Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Zorn, "Support for Multiple
              Clock Rates in an RTP Session", draft-ietf-avtext-
              multiple-clock-rates-10 (work in progress), September
              2013.

The ones above are already in the publication process, so these it does
makes sense to wait for. They are also quite important, especially the
security ones.

   [I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-opus]
              Spittka, J., Vos, K., and J. Valin, "RTP Payload Format
              for Opus Speech and Audio Codec", draft-ietf-payload-rtp-
              opus-01 (work in progress), August 2013.

The OPUS RTP Payload format is used as an example. I think it can be
published without this as an RFC ref.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines]
              Westerlund, M., Perkins, C., and H. Alvestrand,
              "Guidelines for using the Multiplexing Features of RTP to
              Support Multiple Media Streams", draft-ietf-avtcore-
              multiplex-guidelines-01 (work in progress), July 2013.

This are informational guidance, thus good but not necessary.

   [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]
              Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
              Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
              avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-03 (work in progress), July
              2013.

This is included in the template, and thus likely should be waited for.

Summary: I think it should wait for its references, unless anyone get
stuck. I do have hope that they all will complete during 2014.

Cheers

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------