Re: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

Folks,

For a long time I had a vexing Action Item about sending in the RFC
Editor notes for the tentative passage of RTP and the RTP Profile to
Draft Standard.  You guys probably don't remember it, but it was there
for a while, because the notes were a bit intricate, though nothing
was substantive.  The most technical change was the SEC AD request to
point out that the documented encryption approach in RTP should point
out that an AES-based appraoch was on the way, which these changes
have done.

The real reason for delay was a month or so in when we discovered that
one of the profiles had been implemented in reverse-endian by Cisco,
due to adhering to an AAL2 pattern.  There ensued a lengthy polling of
the broad community, including ITU SGs, and assuaging Cisco, before we
determined that this error was not one that should affect the IETF
Draft Standard.  But the WG and Chairs had asked me to hold the
documents while this poll was conducted.  The upshot was no change to
the profile.

Then they asked to re-do the drafts, as you see now.  

Now I would like your trust that the new i-ds are fine and I would
like to ask the Secretariat to announce them as approved Draft
Standards, because they really do reflect our review and approval,
based on my tracking them all the way through.

Any issues?

Allison


> 
> Date:    Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:41:17 PST
> To:      iesg@ietf.org
> cc:      Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
> From:    Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
> Subject: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP
> 
> Dear IESG members:
> 
> You may have observed that the following updated drafts have been
> posted:
> 
>     draft-ietf-avt-rtp-new-12
>     draft-ietf-avt-profile-new-13
> 
> These drafts update -11 and -12, respectively, which have already been
> "tentatively approved" by the IESG for publication as Draft Standards.
> I realize that the IESG normally does not allow drafts to be updated
> after they have been reviewed and approved because you do not want to
> have to review the revised drafts.  However, in this case I received
> permission from our responsible AD, Allison, to submit revised drafts
> because the set of changes that I believe should be made is large
> enough that trying to pass them to the RFC Editor as "RFC Editor
> notes" is not appropriate.  There are three reasons for this:
> 
>   - There were several changes that the IESG requested.
> 
>   - The drafts have been under review for more than a year (this is
>     not a complaint -- some of that time is mine) and during that
>     period there have been several questions from implementers that
>     pointed out places where clarification of the text was needed.
>     I'd like to have the document be the best it can as it goes to
>     Draft Standard.
> 
>   - There are changes in several places where I have tried to
>     carefully scrub down these documents according to ID-nits and
>     rfc2223bis.  There are two examples that I think will let you see
>     why I wanted to handle these revisions through new I-D's:
> 
>       - I have changed the order of a few end-sections.  By doing that
>         in the source, all the refereces are correctly updated.
> 
>       - I have fixed all the places where there were not two spaces
>         after the end of a sentence.
> 
> Marking all of these in RFC-Editor-note format would not be pleasant
> or efficient for me, the IESG, or the RFC Editor.  It would be
> unreasonable, I think, to have a long list of RFC-Editor-notes in the
> message announcing approval to the ietf list and the RFC Editor.
> 
> To minimize the effort required for you to review these changes, I am
> providing a package of files to allow you to easily satisfy yourselves
> that the changes are appropriate:
> 
>   - For the differences of substance, I am providing a description and
>     motivation in RFC-Editor-note format.  This should be all that the
>     IESG as a whole needs to consider.
> 
>   - To let you verify that I have not tried to sneak in any changes of
>     substance other than those I describe, I have separated the
>     changes into a series of "layers" (in the Photoshop sense) so that
>     it is easy to see the differences between each successive pair of
>     layers using diff or wdiff.  I have provided the diff or wdiff
>     output as well, but you may also run those programs for yourself.
>     I assume it would be sufficient for just one IESG member to
>     perform this verification.  I know there is at least one wdiff
>     aficionado on the IESG.
> 
> This package of files is available in a tarball at
> 
>     ftp://ftp.packetdesign.com/outgoing/casner/rtp-diffs.tgz
> 
> Since this tarball contains multiple copies of each draft, it is
> 1.1MB.  Please see the files README-rtp.txt and README-profile.txt for
> a listing of the layers and the changes they contain.  I would be
> happy to answer any questions you may have.
> 
>                                                         -- Steve
>