Re: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> 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?

i'll trust you

randy