[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP
You have my trust.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allison Mankin [mailto:mankin@psg.com]
> Sent: woensdag 12 maart 2003 1:58
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Changes in response to IESG review of RTP
>
>
> 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
> >
>