Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

RFC Type: Proposed Standard. This is a document updating RFC5104, which is a
protocol specification document. RFC type is indicated in the title page header.

(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 fixes a shortcoming in the specification language of the Codec
Control Message Full Intro Request (FIR) as defined in RFC5104 when using with
layered codecs. In particular, a Decoder Refresh Point needs to be send by a
media sender when a FIR is received on any layer of the layered bitstream,
regardless on whether those layers are being sent in a single or in multiple
RTP flows. The other payload-specific feedback messages defined in RFC 5104 and
RFC4585 as updated by RFC 5506 have also been analyzed, and no corresponding
shortcomings have been found.

Working Group Summary:
The WG is happy with current version. No technical comments are received. The
WG process was fast and efficient.

Document Quality:
There are existing deployed implementations of the RFC5104 based mechanisms.
This draft is trying to solve the issues of using RFC5104 in the case of
layered codec, which is expected to be a very common implementation. It’s a
simple document and all the technical parts have been agreed in the WG.

Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Rachel Huang
Responsible AD: Ben Campell

(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.

As the Document Shepherd, I have carefully reviewed the version 01 being
forwarded to IESG. In my opinion, it accurately reflects the consensus of the
working group and is 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.

This document has a security consideration chapter. However, this draft doesn’t
propose any new mechanisms. So it seems no specific security issues will be
produced. But still particular reviews regarding security are required.

(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.

There are no such issues.

(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?

I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related
to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(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?

WG as a whole understand and 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.

No ID nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No further formal review required.

(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.

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 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(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 considerations.

(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.

No such formal language is used in this document.
Back