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:
Technical Summary:
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.
Document Quality:
Multiple existing implementations of this specification are listed at:
https://wiki.xiph.org/OggOpusImplementation
Multiple reviews of this specification had no substantive issues, other than
some discussion about reasonable guidelines for protecting implementations from
malicious input streams.
Personnel:
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.)
No.
(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?
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.
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.
None.
(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.