Media Type Registration of Payload Formats in the RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences
draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-part2-02

IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "RTP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters

For all below listed types the [RFC-avt-rfc3555bis-part2] will be
added as the primary reference.
audio/DVI4
audio/G722
audio/G723
audio/G726-16
audio/G726-24
audio/G726-32
audio/G726-40
audio/G728
audio/G729
audio/G729D
audio/G729E
audio/GSM
audio/GSM-EFR
audio/L8
audio/L16
audio/LPC
audio/PCMA
audio/PCMU
audio/VDVI
video/nv

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

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?

The drafts have had adequate review.

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.)?

I have no concerns.

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.

I have no concerns.

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?

These drafts document existing practice. There is strong consensus.

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. The idnits tool complains that the RFC 3978 Section 5.5
Disclaimer is missing from 3555bis-04, but that appears to be a bug
in idnits (which I have reported).

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. The only normative references to I-Ds are
to sdp-new, which is in AUTH48 currently.

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


* Technical Summary

These drafts specify the procedure to register RTP payload formats
as audio, video or other media subtype names. This is useful in a
text-based format description or control protocol to identify the
type of an RTP transmission. Media type registrations for the RTP
payload formats defined in the RTP Profile for Audio and Video
Conferences are also included. Some of these may also be used for
transfer modes other than RTP.

* Working Group Summary

These drafts update RFC 3555 to document existing practice with
media type registration for RTP payload formats, as has evolved
in the time since RFC 3555 was published, and taking account of
the updated media type registration rules defined in RFC 4288.
They also update a number of media type registrations, to match
the current template.

* Protocol Quality

These drafts were reviewed for the IESG by Magnus Westerlund and
Colin Perkins, and update RFC 3555 to match existing practice.
Review on the ietf-types list was solicited in May 2006, and there
were no objections.