RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control
draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-26
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2021-01-14
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-01-06
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-12-17
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-11-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-11-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-11-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-11-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-11-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-11-18
|
09 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-11-03
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my issues. |
2020-11-03
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-11-02
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-11-02
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-11-02
|
09 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-09.txt |
2020-11-02
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Colin Perkins) |
2020-11-02
|
09 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-24
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-09-24
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-09-24
|
08 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 control designs are not interoperable. To enable algorithm evolution as well as interoperability across designs (e.g., different rate … [Ballot comment] Section 1 control designs are not interoperable. To enable algorithm evolution as well as interoperability across designs (e.g., different rate adaptation algorithms), it is highly desirable to have generic congestion control feedback format. nit: singular/plural mismatch "format"/"to have generic". To help achieve interoperability for unicast RTP congestion control, this memo proposes a common RTCP feedback packet format that can be (side note) is there work underway for non-unicast RTP congestion control? Section 2 In addition the terminology defined in [RFC3550], [RFC3551], [RFC3611], [RFC4585], and [RFC5506] applies. [3551 and 3611 don't seem to have prominent dedicated "definitions" sections.] Section 3.1 o L (1 bit): is a boolean to indicate if the packet was received. 0 represents that the packet was not yet received and all the subsequent bits (ECN and ATO) are also set to 0. 1 represents that the packet was received and the subsequent bits in the block need to be parsed. (side note) it's tempting to parse this as the "loss bit", but then a value of true means not-lost and false means lost, which feels somewhat unnatural. That said, preserving all-bits-zero as "no data" is probably worth the tradeoff... sent previous reports for RTP packets included in both reports. If an RTP packet was reported as received in one report, that packet MUST also be reported as received in any overlapping reports sent later that cover its sequence number range. What should a recipient do if this invariant is violated? Tear down the RTP session as a protocol violation? Section 4 feedback, using a feedback interval range of 50-200ms. Applications need to negotiate an appropriate congestion control feedback interval at session setup time, based on the choice of congestion control algorithm, the expected media bit rate, and the acceptable feedback overhead. Are there protocol mechanisms standardized that can perform this negotiation? (I note that though we provide SDP signalling for the use of CCFB overall, we do not define SDP signalling for the feedback interval.) Section 7 provides duplicate information. Accordingly, when congestion control feedback is to be used with RTP and ECN, the SDP offer generated MUST include an "a=ecn-capable-rtp:" attribute to negotiate ECN support, along with an "a=rtcp-fb:" attribute with the "ack" parameter "ccfb" to indicate that the RTP Congestion Control Feedback Packet is to be used for feedback. The "a=rtcp-fb:" attribute MUST NOT include the "nack" parameter "ecn", so the RTCP ECN Feedback Packet will not be used. Am I reading this correctly that a "mixed" deployment with Offerer that supports both mechanisms and an Answerer that only supports RFC 6679 will result in ECN not being used for the RTP session at all, even though 6679 is supported by both parties? Why does it not suffice to only constrain the Answer behavior? Section 8 control. TMMBR could, however, be viewed a complementary mechanism that can inform the sender of the receiver's current view of acceptable maximum bit rate. The Received Estimated Maximum Bit-rate (REMB) mechanism [I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb] provides similar feedback. The REMB I-D expired in 2014; is it still useful to reference it by name (as opposed to a representative of a class)? Contrast to draft-holmer-rmcat-transport-wide-cc-extensions, which expired in 2016, but we reference only as an example of the class of schemes that adds a transport-wide sequence number to each RTP packet. RTCP Extended Reports (XR): Numerous RTCP extended report (XR) blocks have been defined to report details of packet loss, arrival times [RFC3611], delay [RFC6843], and ECN marking [RFC6679]. It is possible to combine several such XR blocks into a compound RTCP packet, to report the detailed loss, arrival time, and ECN marking marking information needed for effective sender-based congestion control. However, the result has high overhead both in terms of bandwidth and complexity, due to the need to stack multiple reports. If I am reading correctly, RFC 6679 only provides ECN counters, not necessarily at packet granularity, so it may not actually provide as much information as this mechanism. Section 9 Are the named individuals the members of the design team? If not, where can the membership of the design team be determined? Section 11 I look forward to the clarification regarding off-path attacks produced in response to the tsv-art review. In theory the exposure of (somewhat) fine-grained timing information at per-packet granularity could open up new attacks that look for side channels in processing of other protocols operating between the same endpoints, but I am not really convinced that millisecond-scale information presents enough exposure to merit mentioning here. congestion on the path. This will negatively impact the quality of experience of that receiver. Since RTP is an unreliable transport, a And potentially other entities using the bottleneck segment of that path? Also could potentially cause excessive resource consumption on the sender? sender can intentionally leave a gap in the RTP sequence number space without causing harm, to check that the receiver is correctly reporting losses. [I assume that recommended remediation measures in the face of such a lying peer are covered in the referenced documents already.] An on-path attacker that can modify RTCP congestion control feedback packets can change the reports to trick the sender into sending at either an excessively high or excessively low rate, leading to denial of service. The secure RTCP profile [RFC3711] can be used to authenticate RTCP packets to protect against this attack. I guess to try to do this off-path you'd need to guess the SSRCs and sequence-numbers (mod 2**16) in addition to transport ports, which quickly becomes infeasible if there's more than one stream, so it really is just an off-path threat. Section 12.1 It seems that we only list 3611 as normative for the terminology reference, but I didn't see any terminology usage that we clearly needed 3611 for. |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] No objection, but I'm wondering how Rob knows that this isn't actually 5 1/2 bits?! :-P |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thanks to the SECDIR reviewer, Linda Dunbar. |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-09-23
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] In Section 7. there is discussion that CCFB will replace the ECN FB format. I find that appropriate however there is one function … [Ballot discuss] In Section 7. there is discussion that CCFB will replace the ECN FB format. I find that appropriate however there is one function in ECN FB format that is not discussed here. Section 7.2.1 in RFC 6679 states An immediate or early (depending on the RTP/AVPF mode) ECN feedback packet SHOULD be generated on receipt of the first ECT- or ECN-CE-marked packet from a sender that has not previously sent any ECT traffic. Each regular RTCP report MUST also contain an ECN Summary Report (Section 5.2). Reception of subsequent ECN-CE-marked packets MUST result in additional early or immediate ECN feedback packets being sent unless no timely feedback is required. There are no specification in this document that says that on reception of ECN-CE marks the feedback packet should be sent using early or immediate. That might not be required given a correctly configured session, where reporting occur on the time scale. However, I think some discussion of the usage of early reporting for ECN-CE mark is needed if longer reporting intervals are used. Where there any discussion in the WG of this subject? |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] A. Section 3.1: The document in one paragraph states the below: The value of num_reports MAY be zero, indicating that there are no … [Ballot comment] A. Section 3.1: The document in one paragraph states the below: The value of num_reports MAY be zero, indicating that there are no packet metric blocks included for that SSRC. When reading this I did wonder what value should be set. This is given almost at the end of the section in the below sentence. If no packets are received from an SSRC in a reporting interval, a report block MAY be sent with begin_seq set to the highest sequence number previously received from that SSRC and num_reports set to zero (or, the report can simply to omitted). I think it would be clearer if the recommendation for begin_seq when num_reports = 0 to be stated in the context of the first one. Then a more focused sentence for the second part can explain the context in that paragraph. B. Section 11: Since RTP is an unreliable transport, a sender can intentionally leave a gap in the RTP sequence number space without causing harm, to check that the receiver is correctly reporting losses. I think "without causing harm" is overstating it. I think without serious harm is more correct. Depending on jitter buffer and usage of NACK to report packet loss a gap in the sequence number can have cause retransmission requests. Also if the gap is in the wrong place in a packet sequence, for example in the middle of sequence of packets for a single video frame it could trigger a repair action despite all data have been received. I would state it is possible to insert gap with some consideration for the media so that minimal impact is had. |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for this document, I found it pretty easy to read, and it looks useful. One minor nit on your packet diagram: … [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for this document, I found it pretty easy to read, and it looks useful. One minor nit on your packet diagram: Due to where the '|' character is, it looks like the FMT-CCFB field is 5 and half bits long, which probably isn't intended! Regards, Rob |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points and nits. I hope that … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points and nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 3.1 -- In "but overlapping reports MAY be sent (and need to be sent in cases" should the "need" be a "MUST" ? -- Section 5 -- In "then the sender SHOULD rapidly reduce", "sender" is somehow ambiguous: is it the feedback transmitter or the media source sender ? -- Section 6 -- The mandatory use of "*" appears strange to the non-SDP expert (like myself). Why transmitting something that is always identical? What is the value ? == NITS == -- Section 3.1 -- As some reader may also wonder like me, why the use of 'L' (at least I am puzzled)? why not giving one word mnemonic to explain the logic behind this choice ? -- Section 7 -- Is there a typo in ""a=ecn-capaable-rtp:"" ? it is probably redundant to again expand ECN. |
2020-09-22
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-09-21
|
08 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-09-21
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot comment] It sounds like Colin is addressing the tsvart review, so thanks. In section 5, can you clarify (or provide a reference) how to … [Ballot comment] It sounds like Colin is addressing the tsvart review, so thanks. In section 5, can you clarify (or provide a reference) how to detect RTCP packet loss? Is this simply a matter of receiving them at less than the configured rate? |
2020-09-21
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-09-19
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ questions ]] [ section 3.1 ] * If L=0, do we need text about how to treat report entries with non-zero … [Ballot comment] [[ questions ]] [ section 3.1 ] * If L=0, do we need text about how to treat report entries with non-zero ECN and ATO fields? Separately, what's a good mnemonic for "L"? My instinct was to treat it as the "Loss" bit, but with the meaning the values 0 and 1 reversed that doesn't actually work very well. [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "to have generic...format" -> "to have a generic...format", perhaps [ section 3.1 ] * "sent previous reports" -> "previous reports sent", perhaps? [ section 7 ] * "a=ecn-capaable-rtp:" -> "a=ecn-capable-rtp:" [ section 8 ] * "ECN marking marking information" -> "ECN marking information" |
2020-09-19
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-09-24 |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Barry Leiba | The GenART and TSVART reviews need to be responded to and addressed. |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-09-17
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-09-16
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK |
2020-09-16
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2020-09-15
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-09-15
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the FMT Values for RTPFB Payload Types registry on the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/ a new value will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: CCFB Long Name: RTP Congestion Control Feedback Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." Second, in the "ack" and "nack" Attribute Values registry on the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/ a new value will be assigned as follows: Value Name: ccfb Long Name: Congestion Control Feedback Usable with: ack Mux: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> What should the entry be for Mux: for this new registration? The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-09-11
|
08 | Linda Dunbar | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list. |
2020-09-09
|
08 | Michael Scharf | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Michael Scharf. Sent review to list. |
2020-09-08
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Michael Scharf |
2020-09-08
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Michael Scharf |
2020-09-07
|
08 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2020-09-03
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: avt@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba , barryleiba@gmail.com, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-16): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: avt@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba , barryleiba@gmail.com, bernard.aboba@gmail.com, avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-09-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes an RTCP feedback message intended to enable congestion control for interactive real-time traffic using RTP. The feedback message is designed for use with a sender-based congestion control algorithm, in which the receiver of an RTP flow sends RTCP feedback packets to the sender containing the information the sender needs to perform congestion control. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-09-02
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-08.txt |
2020-09-02
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Colin Perkins) |
2020-09-02
|
08 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Notification list changed to bernard.aboba@gmail.com, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> from bernard.aboba@gmail.com |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Document shepherd changed to Dr. Bernard D. Aboba |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (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? This RFC will be a proposed standard as indicated on the title page. It specified a new RTCP feedback message. (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 describes an RTCP feedback message intended to enable congestion control for interactive real-time traffic using RTP. The feedback message is designed for use with a sender-based congestion control algorithm, in which the receiver of an RTP flow sends RTCP feedback packets to the sender containing the information the sender needs to perform congestion control. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document was reviewed by the WG and went through WG last call and had the WG consensus Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The feedback message was tested in a recent Hackathon and is used for the RMCAT WG work. Sergio Mena, Nils Olhmeier and Jonathan Lennox had interop implementations at the Hackathon. Ingemar Johansson also provided good feedback. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba 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 document shepherd reviewed the document and find id ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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. No (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. No IPR (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? The WG agree with the document (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No (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. None (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No need (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (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? Waiting for mmusic bundle and mux attribute which are in publication stage (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. No (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 (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 8126). The IANA section is OK (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 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, YANG modules, etc. No need (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Notification list changed to bernard.aboba@gmail.com from Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> |
2020-07-23
|
07 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (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? This RFC will be a proposed standard as indicated on the title page. It specified a new RTCP feedback message. (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 describes an RTCP feedback message intended to enable congestion control for interactive real-time traffic using RTP. The feedback message is designed for use with a sender-based congestion control algorithm, in which the receiver of an RTP flow sends RTCP feedback packets to the sender containing the information the sender needs to perform congestion control. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document was reviewed by the WG and went through WG last call and had the WG consensus Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The feedback message was tested in the last Hackathons and is used for the RMCAT WG work. Sergio Mena, Nils Olhmeier and Jonathan Lennox had interop implementations at the Hackathon. Ingemar Johansson also provided good feedback. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even in the document shepard and Barry Leiba is the resposible 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 documenyt shepard reviewed the document and find id ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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. No (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. No IPR (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? The WG agree with the document (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.) No (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. None (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No need (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (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? Waiting for mmusic bundle and mux attribute which are in publication stage (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. No (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 (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 8126). The IANA section is OK (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 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, YANG modules, etc. No need (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (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? This RFC will be a proposed standard as indicated on the title page. It specified a new RTCP feedback message. (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 describes an RTCP feedback message intended to enable congestion control for interactive real-time traffic using RTP. The feedback message is designed for use with a sender-based congestion control algorithm, in which the receiver of an RTP flow sends RTCP feedback packets to the sender containing the information the sender needs to perform congestion control. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document was reviewed by the WG and went through WG last call and had the WG consensus Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The feedback message was tested in the last Hackathons and is used for the RMCAT WG work. Sergio Mena, Nils Olhmeier and Jonathan Lennox had interop implementations at the Hackathon. Ingemar Johansson also provided good feedback. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even in the document shepard and Barry Leiba is the resposible 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 documenyt shepard reviewed the document and find id ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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. No (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. No IPR (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? The WG agree with the document (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.) No (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. None (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No need (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (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? Waiting for mmusic bundle and mux attribute which are in publication stage (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. No (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 (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 8126). The IANA section is OK (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 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, YANG modules, etc. No need (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | Notification list changed to Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> from Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> |
2020-06-11
|
07 | Roni Even | Document shepherd changed to Roni Even |
2020-06-10
|
07 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-07.txt |
2020-06-10
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Colin Perkins) |
2020-06-10
|
07 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-09
|
06 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-06.txt |
2020-03-09
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Colin Perkins) |
2020-03-09
|
06 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-04
|
05 | Roni Even | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-12-04
|
05 | Roni Even | Notification list changed to Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> |
2019-12-04
|
05 | Roni Even | Document shepherd changed to Roni Even |
2019-11-18
|
05 | Anna Brunstrom | Added to session: IETF-106: rmcat Tue-1330 |
2019-11-07
|
05 | Rachel Huang | Added to session: IETF-106: avtcore Fri-1220 |
2019-11-04
|
05 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-05.txt |
2019-11-04
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Colin Perkins) |
2019-11-04
|
05 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-16
|
04 | Rachel Huang | Added to session: IETF-105: avtcore Tue-1710 |
2019-07-09
|
04 | Anna Brunstrom | Added to session: IETF-105: rmcat Thu-1740 |
2019-07-08
|
04 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-04.txt |
2019-07-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho |
2019-07-08
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-26
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-12-23
|
03 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-03.txt |
2018-12-23
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-23
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho |
2018-12-23
|
03 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-19
|
02 | Anna Brunstrom | Added to session: IETF-102: rmcat Fri-0930 |
2018-07-15
|
02 | Rachel Huang | Added to session: IETF-102: avtcore Mon-1550 |
2018-07-15
|
02 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-02.txt |
2018-07-15
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-15
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho |
2018-07-15
|
02 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Colin Perkins | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-01.txt |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, Colin Perkins , Varun Singh , Zaheduzzaman Sarker , Michael Ramalho |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Colin Perkins | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-14
|
00 | Anna Brunstrom | Added to session: IETF-100: rmcat Wed-1330 |
2017-11-02
|
00 | Jonathan Lennox | This document now replaces draft-dt-rmcat-feedback-message instead of None |
2017-10-30
|
00 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-00.txt |
2017-10-30
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-10-30
|
00 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Set submitter to "Zaheduzzaman Sarker ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-10-30
|
00 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Uploaded new revision |