|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards Track RFC.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This reference specifies the RTCP-XR metrics for use in an IP-to-IP gateway.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3611
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 3611 is a Proposed Standard. Errata exist.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 3611 is a definition of a new packet type specified for use in reporting extended quality of service statistics utilizing the RTCP protocol. RFC3611 also defines a number of Quality of Service statistics and jitter buffer settings to be measured against RFC streams and reported to the far-end entity using RTCP. RFC 3611 was just published as a Proposed Standard in November, but saw significant development and editing work in the months leading up to its publishing and so is unlikely to change significantly in the future. RFC 3611 may be replaced in the process of promotion to Draft Standard within the next few years, but aside from the change in reference, differences in the technical content may not be significant.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 3611 defines a packet type carried by the RTCP protocol specified in RFC 3550. Inside that packet is carried several parametric data points calculated as specified in ITU-T Recommendation G.107, ITU-T Recommendation G.108 and ETSI TS 101 329-5. RFC 3611 also describes how the RTCP XR capability can be advertised via SDP. SDP is defined in RFC 2327 with additional negotiation capabilities described by RFC 3264.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[2] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997./
[3] ETSI, "Quality of Service (QoS) measurement methodologies", ETSI TS 101 329-5 V1.1.1 (2000-11), November 2000./
[4] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998./
[5] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996./
[6] ITU-T, "The E-Model, a computational model for use in transmission planning", Recommendation G.107, January 2003./
[7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998./
[8] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002./
[9] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003./
[10] TIA/EIA-810-A Transmission Requirements for Narrowband Voice over IP and Voice over PCM Digital Wireline Telephones, December 2000.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
