WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-11

[Ballot comment]
The text below is due to be added in Section 3 of the document based on WG consensus confirmed on April 20.

"DTMF events generated by a WebRTC endpoint MUST have a duration of no more than 8000 ms and no less than 40 ms.  The recommended default duration is 100 ms for each tone. The gap between events MUST be no less than 30 ms; the recommended default gap duration is 70 ms.

WebRTC endpoints are not required to do anything with RFC 4733 tones sent to them, except gracefully drop them. There is currently no API to inform JavaScript about the received DTMF or other RFC 4733 tones."

[Ballot comment]
In Section 5: AEC is a SHOULD implement with no reference. Is this well understood to be implementable without any reference?

In section 8: acronym VBR is used for the first time without explanation.

[Ballot comment]
The text below is due to be added in Section 3 of the document, pending list confirmation of consensus in the room from IETF 95, which is due to wrap up on April 20.

"DTMF events generated by a WebRTC endpoint MUST have a duration of no more than 8000 ms and no less than 40 ms.  The recommended default duration is 100 ms for each tone. The gap between events MUST be no less than 30 ms; the recommended default gap duration is 70 ms.

WebRTC endpoints are not required to do anything with RFC 4733 tones sent to them, except gracefully drop them. There is currently no API to inform JavaScript about the received DTMF or other RFC 4733 tones."

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-10.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alcoop@cisco.com, draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in
WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document:
- 'WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements'
  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 2016-03-09. 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 outlines the audio codec and processing requirements
  for WebRTC endpoints.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio/ballot/


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

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?

PS, yes

(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 outlines the audio codec and processing requirements
  for WebRTC client application and endpoint devices.

Working Group Summary

Some members of the WG wished to add additional MTI codecs. Rational for those are provided in draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop which is referenced by this spec.

Document Quality

  There are several implementations including FireFox and Chrome.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Cullen Jennings

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Alissa Cooper

(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 has had intensive review by the WG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(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

(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

(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.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No. (Note there is IPR on RFC this normatively references)

(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? 

There was strong consensus for what is in here. However, there is a small group that feels additional codecs should also be included.

(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.

nothing other than idnits warnings on outdated refs that RFC Ed will fix. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(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.

No

(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).

NA

(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.

NA

(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.

NA

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?

PS, yes

(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 outlines the audio codec and processing requirements
  for WebRTC client application and endpoint devices.

Working Group Summary

Some members of the WG wished to add additional MTI codecs. Rational for those are provided in draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop which is referenced by this spec.

Document Quality

  There are several implementations including FireFox and Chrome.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Cullen Jennings

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.

The document has had intensive review by the WG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(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

(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

(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.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No. (Note there is IPR on RFC this normatively references)

(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? 

There was strong consensus for what is in here. However, there is a small group that feels additional codecs should also be included.

(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.

nothing other than idnits warnings on outdated refs that RFC Ed will fix. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(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.

No

(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).

NA

(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.

NA

(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.

NA