(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. Title page indicates "Standards Track".
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The document defines RTSP version 2.0 which obsoletes RTSP version 1.0 defined in RFC 2326.
The Real Time Streaming Protocol, or RTSP, is an application-level protocol for setup and control of the delivery of data with real-time properties. RTSP provides an extensible framework to enable controlled, on-demand delivery of real-time data, such as audio and video. Sources of data can include both live data feeds and stored clips. This protocol is intended to control multiple data delivery sessions, provide a means for choosing delivery channels such as UDP, multicast UDP and TCP, and provide a means for choosing delivery mechanisms based upon RTP (RFC 3550).
Working Group Summary
The document has been work in progress for an extended period of time dating back to 2002. Earlier versions saw decent WG participation however the later versions have primarily been driven by the document authors with limited overall discussion in the group, especially towards the end of the process. There are no known issues or major discussion points, and there has been no indication of lack of consensus in the WG.
The document has been reviewed in detail several times after WGLC and in preparation for the publication request and the authors have made several updates as a result of those. The document is considered to be of high quality at this point.
There is one known implementation of the specification, and many of the extensions compared to RTSP 1.0 have been implemented separately as well.
A Media type review was done for "text/parameters". The review thread can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html
Document Shepherd: Flemming Andreasen
Responsible AD: Gonzalo Camarillo
(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.
I have performed detailed end-to-end review of the document twice. The first review resulted in a number of clarifying updates, and the second review revealed only minor issues, which have subsequently been addressed by the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Earlier versions of the document received some amount of WG attention, however the document has seen little recent active review and participation in the WG outside of the authors and the document shepherd. Detailed reviews have been performed by the authors and the document shepherd several times and the document is of high quality at this point. As noted, due to the relatively limited number of people having reviewed the latest version(s), the reviews have not been as broad as we would like.
(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 such additional review is believed to be needed (nor has one been performed).
(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.
There are no specific concerns or issued with the document at this point.
(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?
Each author has confirmed full conformance.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
An IPR disclosure has been made on an earlier version of the document:
and an updated IPR disclosure reflecting subsequent changes in document section numbers has been made as well:
The IPR was originally disclosed at IETF 76:
and also posted to the MMUSIC list subsequently:
There has been no further comments or discussion around the IPR.
Also note that an IPR disclosure was made (in 1997 ?) on an earlier version of RTSP: http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/RTSP
(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?
The document mostly represents the work of the authors and WG consensus is primarily based on that as well. There are no known concerns from anybody.
(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 threat of appeal or other indication of discontent
(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.
The document has been reviewed and had ID-nits run on it by two of the authors and the shepherd. The draft previously resulted in a lot of unused references in ID-nits, which appeared to be a shortcoming of ID-nits as it didn't parse the whole draft for reference, only up to the reference section. Thus all references that are only in the appendixes were marked as unused. The authors have manually checked this on the -33 version and found them to be false alarms. Henrik was going to address the issue and it appears to have been fixed as of the latest ID-nits check run. ID-nits has a couple of false FQDN warnings as well.
The document has a normative reference to RFC 2818, which itself (somewhat suprisingly) is an Informative RFC and hence causes a downref issue. However, RFC 2818 is in the downref registry and hence should not be a problem:
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
As mentioned above, the media type review (for "text/parameters") can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01656.html
The URI review during WG last call is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01567.html
The URI review discussion resulted in the addition of explicit calling out the changes to the scheme which could potentially result in issues.
(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?
No such references.
(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 downward reference to RFC 2818 as noted above.
RFC 2818 is already listed in the downref registry: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC 2326 (RTSP 1.0). This is shown on the title page and both listed and discussed in the abstract and introduction.
(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 a number of new IANA registries and registers values in these as well as a couple of existing ones. All the IANA registries and registrations appear complete and correct.
(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.
The document defines a number of new registries of which the following require RFC 5226 Expert Review (or Specification Required with implied Designated Expert review) as noted in the IANA considerations section of the document:
- RTSP Headers (Section 22.4)
- Media Properties (Section 22.7)
- Notify-Reasons header (Section 22.8)
- Range header formats (Section 22.9)
- Terminate Reason: Redirect Reasons (Section 22.10.1)
- Terminate Reason: Terminate-Reasone header Parameters (Section 22.10.2)
- RTP-Info header parameters (Section 22.11)
- Seek-Style Policies (Section 22.12)
- Transport Header: Transport Protocol Specification (22.13.1)
- Transport Header: Transport Parameters (22.13.3)
The document authors are the expert reviewers with Magnus Westerlund as the primary Designated Expert reviewer.
(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.
All ABNF has been validated by Bill Fenner's ABNF parser.