RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
draft-ietf-avt-rfc2032-bis-13

IANA Last Call Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will update the reference to be this document for the video/H261 MIME Media Type.
Do we understand correctly that this is the only IANA Action that has be be performed?

PROTO Write-up

1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and
do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the
IESG for publication?

Yes.

1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

It has received review, by key WG members in AVT.

1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
it, etc. If your issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway, note
if you continue to have concerns.

No issues.

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?

Strong consensus from interested parties.

1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise what are they upset about.

No.

1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of
the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.

1.h) Does the document a) split references into normative/
informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where
the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in
an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC
with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication
until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

References have been split. There are is a reference to a draft, however
that one is in the RFC-editor queue.

1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following
sections:


* Technical Summary

This memo specifies the RTP payload format for ITU H.261 Video Codec. It
is an update that replaces RFC 2032. The changes are the inclusion of
new optional media type parameters for image size and Annex D usage. The
payload specific control messages has also been deprecated. The changes
to the media type are backwards compatible and provides useful
explicitness around image size and usage of Annex D in the setup phase,
especially in the context of SIP/SDP Offer/Answer.


* Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.


* Protocol Quality

The core of this document, the payload format itself has been in use for
several years. Thus basic interoperability and implementability is well
known. The updated document has been reviewed by the WG.

recycle at PS because of some new optional parameters, but working on
implementation report and hope is to do DS without republishing
because very clean

Almost at WGLC