RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC 61834) Video
draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis-03

[Ballot comment]
Sent in email to IANA as well: RFC 3189 ought to have registered audio/DV when it was published in 2002, yet there is no registration for audio/DV. IANA should probably register audio/DV now with a pointer to 3189 and simply update to this document once approved.

[Ballot comment]
1. In the intorduction the following phrase is duplicated in adjoining paragraphs:

> In the future it can be extended into other video formats managed by
  80 byte DV Digital Interface Format (DIF) block.

2. Please expand at the first occurence IEC, SMPTE, MLDv2, LW-IGMPv3

3. It is not clear what is the meaning of the statement in the interoperability section 8:

> In addition, the SDP examples in RFC3189 provides incorrect SDP
  "a=fmtp" attribute usage.

Is the example made not relevant or corrected by this document? Why does it show in the interoperability section 8 and not in section 7 (changes from RFC 3189)?

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont on 14-Oct-2011 includes a few
  editorial suggestions.  Please consider them.

  - S3.3.1, page 14: I suggest m=* in place of m=??

  - S4, page 15: in general encryption is done after compression for
  crypto reasons and common sense: quality encryption gives a random
  result, i.e., something impossible to compress...

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
The authors plan to issue a revision addressing a last call conversation.

Upon approval of this document, IANA will perform three actions.

First, IANA will replace the reference for media type video/DV.

Second, IANA will register media type audio/DV.

Third, IANA will replace the reference to RFC3189 at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC 61834) Video) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC 61834) Video'
  as a 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 2011-09-26. 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.

Abstract


  This document specifies the packetization scheme for encapsulating
  the compressed digital video data streams commonly known as "DV" into
  a payload format for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP).  This
  document obsoletes RFC 3189.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Roni Even. I have reviewed the document, and
believe it is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document went through a Working Group last call and people had enough
time to review it. There were comments in the WGLC and they were addressed
in this revision of the document. This document is an update to an existing
RFC and the document Shepherd feels that the review was satisfactory.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

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?

This is an update to an existing payload specification. It has consensus of
a few individual who reviewed the draft.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits?(See the Checklist and idnits
).Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review
criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type
reviews?

The idnits tool reports some comments which are OK.
The media subtype registration was sent to review to ietf-types mailing
list.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA consideration section exists and is inline with the body of the
document.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

No such sections


(1.k) 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
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.

"This document specifies the packetization scheme for encapsulating the
compressed digital video data streams commonly known as "DV" into a payload
format for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP). This document obsoletes
RFC 3189."

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?


The draft updates RFC3189 the major changes are:

1. Removed SMPTE 306M, since it is covered by SMPTE 314M format.

2. Added SMPTE 370M 100Mbps HDTV (1080/60i, 1080/50i, 720/60p, and
720/50p) format.

3. Incorporated Source Specific Multicast (SSM) spec. for avoiding
overloaded traffic source in multicast usage. Added a reference
to the Source Specific Multicast (SSM) specifications as a way to
reduce unwanted traffic in a multicast application.

4. Clarified the case where the sender omits subcode DIF block data
from the stream.

It has an interoperability with Previous Implementations section. No
specific issues to report.


Document Quality

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?

The media type review was posted on July 11, 2011. DV is used in The Society
of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) stand