Subject: [payload] Publication request for draft-ietf-payload-vp8

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:07:33 +0000

Hi Robert,

This is the publication request for draft-ietf-payload-vp8.

The draft has been reviewed by many individuals. It follows the typical
payload format document style. It satisfies one of our milestones.

Thanks,
-acbegen

(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?

Standards track as indicated in the title page header.

(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 specifies the RTP payload format for the VP8 video codec.
The VP8 codec supports various applications ranging from low-bitrate
peer-to-peer to high-bitrate videoconferencing applications.

Working Group Summary

	The WGLC process was run twice and bunch of comments were addressed in
the latest version. After the second WGLC, there were some comments
submitted by Cullen Jennings and one of the authors responded in the list.
At this time, we are proceeding with publication request. If there are
further comments, they can be submitted during the IETF LC.

Document Quality

	The VP8 codec has been used in various applications (most notably by
Google). Earlier versions of codec were used by Skype. The media subtype
registration review was request on 11/28/2012.

Personnel

	Ali Begen is the document shepherd. Robert Sparks is the responsible AD.

(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 shepherd reviewed the latest version (-08) and there are no issues.

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

	Not at this point.

(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.

	Nope.

(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.

	None.

(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.

	There is one IPR submission from Vidyo (IPR 1622). The WG did not have
concerns about this IPR submission.

(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?

	Several people reviewed this document, mostly who are interested in
implementing this payload. There were no objections from the rest of the
WG.

(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.)

	Nope.

(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.

	There are a few ID nits.

	1) Unused reference: RFC 3984
	2) Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4288 (Obsoleted by RFC 6838)
	3) Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6386

There are also a few minor errors. For example, the subtype has 3 (not 2)
optional parameters.

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

	Media subtype registration review was requested:
	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00455.html

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

	No, which means all references will be considered as "normative".

(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?

	Nope.

(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 downref to RFC 6386, which is the main RFC that describes the
VP8 data format. That RFC is an informational one since it was an
independent submission (not thru a WG).

(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 changes to existing documents.

(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 media subtype registration is compliant with the registration
template (RFC 6838).

(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.

	No new IANA 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 considerations.