RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES)
draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-01-19 |
09 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8852, changed abstract to 'This document defines and registers two new Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8852, changed abstract to 'This document defines and registers two new Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES) items. One, named RtpStreamId, is used for unique identification of RTP streams. The other, RepairedRtpStreamId, can be used to identify which stream is to be repaired using a redundancy RTP stream.', changed pages to 8, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-01-19, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
2021-01-19 |
09 | (System) | RFC published |
2020-08-10 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-04-09 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-16 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2019-08-16 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2019-08-16 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-08-15 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT |
2019-08-15 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2018-06-19 |
09 | Ben Campbell | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2018-06-18 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT |
2018-06-18 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2017-07-20 |
09 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2017-07-20 |
09 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-07-20 |
09 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-11-12 |
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-10-24 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-10-21 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-10-20 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-10-19 |
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-10-19 |
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-10-19 |
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-10-19 |
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-10-19 |
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-10-19 |
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-10-19 |
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-18 |
09 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-10-18 |
09 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-06 |
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-10-06 |
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-10-06 |
09 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09.txt |
2016-10-06 |
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-06 |
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Suhas Nandakumar" <snandaku@cisco.com>, "Peter Thatcher" <pthatcher@google.com>, "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com> |
2016-10-06 |
08 | Adam Roach | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-01 |
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-09-01 |
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> performed the opsdir review and changes were incorporated into 07 |
2016-09-01 |
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-09-01 |
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-09-01 |
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-09-01 |
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-08-31 |
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-08-31 |
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-08-31 |
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] There is one use of normative language but no rfc2119 boilerplate: "RtpStreamId and RepairedStreamId MUST contain only alphanumeric characters." I would actually recommend … [Ballot comment] There is one use of normative language but no rfc2119 boilerplate: "RtpStreamId and RepairedStreamId MUST contain only alphanumeric characters." I would actually recommend to add more normative language (and the boilerplate), e.g.: " To be clear: the value carried in a RepairedRtpStreamId MUST match the RtpStreamId value from another RTP stream in the same session. For example, if a source RTP stream is identified by RtpStreamId "A", then any redundancy RTP stream that repairs that source RTP stream will contain a RepairedRtpStreamId of "A" (if this mechanism is being used to perform such correlation). These redundant RTP streams MAY also contain their own unique RtpStreamId." |
2016-08-31 |
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the "don't use PII" text! |
2016-08-30 |
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text from the Introduction, RTP sessions frequently consist of multiple streams, would it be possible to add a word … [Ballot comment] In this text from the Introduction, RTP sessions frequently consist of multiple streams, would it be possible to add a word or two explaining why this happens? If it's true that this happens because multiple media types, or codecs, or ... are in use in the same RTP session, that's the level of detail I'm thinking about. In this text: At the same time, when redundancy RTP streams are in use, could you provide a reference for redundancy RTP streams? I'm guessing this is using RFC 7198, but that's just a guess. I was impressed that you included this, These redundant RTP streams may also contain their own unique RtpStreamId. but (of course) started wondering why you'd do that - can the RtpStreamId for a redundancy RTP stream appear as a RepairedRtpStreamId for a third RTP stream? Or is there some other reason to assign an RtpStreamId? |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I don't see a response to the SecDir review, but maybe missed it? https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06724.html |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-08-29 |
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-08-26 |
08 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-26 |
08 | Ben Campbell | Note field has been cleared |
2016-08-26 |
08 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-08.txt |
2016-08-26 |
07 | Adam Roach | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-08-26 |
07 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-07.txt |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01 |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Note added 'The author expects to submit an update early Friday to catch some minor last call commentary. If that doesn't happen I will defer.' |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot has been issued |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-08-12 |
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-08-12 |
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtext-rid-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtext-rid-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete. First, the authors request the registration of "the RtpStreamId SDES item to the IANA "RTCP SDES item types" registry" in section 4.1 of the current document. IANA Question --> Do the authors intend that the registration for section 4.1 take place in the RTP SDES Item Types registry located at: [ https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/ ]? IANA is unable to locate the "RTCP SDES item types" registry. If not, could the authors provide the location (URI) for the registration. Second, in section 4.2 of the current draft, the authors once again refer to the "RTCP SDES item types" registry. IANA Question --> Do the authors intend that the registration for section 4.2 take place in the RTP SDES Item Types registry located at: [ https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/ ]? IANA is unable to locate the "RTCP SDES item types" registry. If not, could the authors provide the location (URI) for the registration. Third, in the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/ a single new header extension is to be registered as follows: Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:rtp-stream-id Description: RTP Stream Identifier Contact: adam@nostrum.com Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Fourth, also in the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/ another new header extension is to be registered as follows: Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:repaired-rtp-sream-id Description: RTP Repaired Stream Identifier Contact: adam@nostrum.com Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that the four actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-08-12 |
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-08-11 |
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2016-08-08 |
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2016-08-04 |
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2016-08-04 |
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2016-08-01 |
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-08-01 |
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-08-01 |
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2016-08-01 |
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: ben@nostrum.com, avtext@ietf.org, jonathan@vidyo.com, avtext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtext-rid@ietf.org, "Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com> Reply-To: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: ben@nostrum.com, avtext@ietf.org, jonathan@vidyo.com, avtext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtext-rid@ietf.org, "Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-avtext-rid-06.txt> (RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Extensions WG (avtext) to consider the following document: - 'RTP Stream Identifier Source Description (SDES)' <draft-ietf-avtext-rid-06.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This document contains a normative reference to RFC 7656, which is an informational RFC. Abstract This document defines and registers two new RTCP SDES items. One, named RtpStreamId, is used for unique identification of RTP streams. The other, RepairedRtpStreamId, can be used to identify which stream a redundancy RTP stream is to be used to repair. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-rid/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtext-rid/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc7656: A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources (Informational - IETF stream) Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry. |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Last call was requested |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-07-29 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | My AD Evaluation: Minor Comments: - 4.3, last paragraph (and similar text in other registrations) The first sentence is only guaranteed true if the implementation … My AD Evaluation: Minor Comments: - 4.3, last paragraph (and similar text in other registrations) The first sentence is only guaranteed true if the implementation follows the guidance in 3.3. That says “strongly encouraged”. Maybe it should say something stronger? (Or mention the condition here?) - 6: Did you actually mean to acknowledge a co-author? (Peter) Editorial Comments and Nits: - Please expand first mention of "SDES" in both the abstract and body. - 5, 2nd paragraph: s/ impelementors / implementors ; unless you meant "impalementors". :-) Also, does _this_ document strongly encourage encryption, or is that general encouragement from elsewhere that can be cited? -5, 3rd paragraph: s/exchange/change |
2016-07-26 |
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation |
2016-07-25 |
06 | Ben Campbell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-07-18 |
06 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-06.txt |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard; two new RTP Source Description and header extension items are defined, for which interoperability will be necessary. (2) 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 This document defines and registers two new RTCP Source Description items. One, named RtpStreamId, is used for unique identification of RTP streams. The other, RepairedRtpStreamId, can be used to identify which stream a redundancy RTP stream is to be used to repair. It also defines and registers corresponding RTP Header Extension Elements. Working Group Summary The document went through an initial last call, during which there were some objections to the design. The authors and the objectors met together at the Buenos Aires IETF meeting, and worked out a slightly altered design which satisfied everyone. A second last call produced only minor requests for changes, which were addressed, and several people confirmed that they had no issues with the draft. Document Quality The document was reviewed by several AVText members, which resulted in the current design. The mechanism defined by the document is expected to be mandated by WebRTC. It is already implemented in Firefox and is planned to be implemented in Chrome. Personnel The document Shepherd is Jonathan Lennox. The Responsible Area Director is Ben Campbell. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd read the submitted version of the document fully, as well as reviewing and commenting on several earlier versions of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document got good review by multiple people from AVText and all comments were addressed. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No broader reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. All the authors have indicated they no of know relevant IPR on this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR Disclosures have been filed. (9) 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? Most of the group's most active (and expert) participants have indicated agreement with the document's final design. No disagreement was indicated. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-avtext-rid-05.txt There is one downref; see (15) below. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There is a normative reference to RFC 7656, "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", which is an Informational RFC. RFC 7656 defines terminology which this document cites, rather than repeat. RFC 7656 seems likely to be a useful addition to the downref registry, as it was written to standardize RTP terminology across IETF documents. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document defines two new entries for the "RTCP SDES item types" registry. This registry is Specification Required or Expert Review. The required information is included. It also defines two corresponding entries in the "RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions" sub-registry, which is Expert Review. All the required information is included. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new registries are defined. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal language is used in the document. |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-07-07 |
05 | Jonathan Lennox | Changed document writeup |
2016-07-06 |
05 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-05.txt |
2016-06-21 |
04 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-04.txt |
2016-06-21 |
03 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-03.txt |
2016-06-09 |
02 | Jonathan Lennox | Notification list changed to "Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com> |
2016-06-09 |
02 | Jonathan Lennox | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Lennox |
2016-05-02 |
02 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-02.txt |
2016-04-04 |
01 | Jonathan Lennox | Added to session: IETF-95: avtext Thu-1730 |
2016-03-03 |
01 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-01.txt |
2016-02-18 |
00 | Jonathan Lennox | This document now replaces draft-roach-avtext-rid instead of None |
2016-02-18 |
00 | Adam Roach | New version available: draft-ietf-avtext-rid-00.txt |