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 document will be a
Standard track RFC. This memo defines a Reporting Group extension to RTCP to
reduce the reporting overhead. The type is indicated in the title page
(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: RTP allows
multiple media streams to be sent in a single session, but requires each
Synchronization Source (SSRC) to send RTCP reception quality reports for
every other SSRC visible in the session. This causes the number of RTCP
reception reports to grow with the number of SSRCs, rather than the number of
endpoints. In many cases most of these RTCP reception reports are unnecessary,
since all SSRCs of an endpoint are co-located and see the same reception
quality. This memo defines a Reporting Group extension to RTCP to reduce the
reporting overhead in such scenarios.
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 discussed in the meetings and on the
mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues,
there was consensus on the content of the document.
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, 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?
This work was done based on input from RTCWEB WG and vendors will support it.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd.
The responsible AD is Ben Campbell.
(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 in previous and current version and
found it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews during its
progress and had good enough reviews during the WGLC.
(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 need
(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. No concerns
(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. The authors confirmed.
(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 understand the document
and agree with it.
(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. No issues
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There is a new SDP
attribute in the document but it is a simple one and the BNF is there. (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? No. (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.
There are none (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 5226). The IANA section is correct and in line with the document (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 IANA 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, etc. There is one formal definition of an SDP
attribute. It is a very simple one with no parameters so no need for review.