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?
This specification is requested to be a Proposed Standard as indicated in the header. It is a deliverable of the CODEC WG for its milestone "Container format for OPUS codec to IESG as PS".
(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:
This specification defines the encapsulation of the Opus [RFC6716] audio codec in the Ogg [RFC3533] container format. This allows Opus audio bitstreams to be stored in Ogg files or streamed over networks in a form that is identical to the file storage format.
Working Group Summary:
Solid WG consensus on this spec throughout the process with no controversy or objections.
Multiple existing implementations of this specification are listed at:
Multiple reviews of this specification had no substantive issues, other than some discussion about reasonable guidelines for protecting implementations from malicious input streams.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Mo Zanaty
Who is the Responsible Area Director? 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.
This version was thoroughly reviewed in its entirety, and had no substantive technical issues. Comments were mainly to improve text clarity, firm up normative SHOULDs, and update IANA considerations for the Media Types registry.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns over reviews.
(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 further special review 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 issues or concerns remain open in this document from the perspective of the Document Shepherd or the workgroup.
(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 authors have confirmed no IPR disclosures have been filed because they are not aware of any IPR that may be required to implement this specification.
(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 reference this document.
(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?
WG consensus is based on unanimous and strong support from the most active WG members, with most others silent, and no objections.
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
ID nits found a normative downref to RFC 3533 which is Informational. RFC 3533 defines the basic Ogg container format, which is essential for implementing this specification. So it is appropriate to categorize RFC 3533 as a normative reference despite its Informational status. RFC 3533 was not the output of any IETF WG, but rather an AD-sponsored document that was reviewed and approved by the IESG. Had it been the output of an IETF WG, the WG would have likely proposed it to be a Standards Track document not Informational.
ID nits also found a possible normative downref to a non-RFC specification EBU-R128. This should remain normative as it is the Loudness Recommendation of the European Broadcast Union.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not define a MIB, media type, URI type or anything else that requires formal review criteria. It merely updates the list of possible values of an optional parameter of existing media types. For this, it updates the IANA Media Types registry to add a reference to itself for MIME Types audio/ogg, video/ogg and application/ogg.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
Yes. There are normative downrefs to RFC 3533 which is Informational, and to EBU-R128 which is a non-RFC specification. These should remain normative for the reasons stated in (11).
(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, this will not change the status of existing RFCs.
(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).
Review discovered that the IANA Media Types registry needs to add a reference to this spec for audio/ogg, video/ogg and application/ogg, for the optional parameter "codecs=opus".
(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.
(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 sections.