Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) over Data Channels
draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-24

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this easy read even for an MSRP neophyte; a relatively small
number of comments from me :)

Section 4.4

  An offerer and answerer SHALL include a dcsa attribute for each of
  the following MSRP-specific SDP attributes:

  o  defined in [RFC4975]: "path".

  o  defined in [RFC6714]: "msrp-cema".

  o  defined in [RFC6135]: "setup".  See Section 4.5

Some discussion of why "msrp-cema" and "setup" are mandatory for all
MSRP data-channel usage (noting that neither RFC 6714 nor RFC 6135 has
an "Updates:" relationship to RFC 4975, which might suggest that they
are independent extensions) might be helpful.  I see strong "MUST always
include an explicit a=setup attribute" in RFC 6135, with some
justification, but RFC 6714 is only using language like "attribute,
'msrp-cema', that MSRP endpoints use to indicate support of the CEMA
extension", which suggests that the extension is seen as an optional
thing.  (Is the CEMA requirement just to allow transparent use of a
gateway to a non-data-channel peer?  I guess the IANA considerations
mention "the routing of MSRP messages transported on a data channel is
more similar to the MSRP CEMA mechanism than the legacy MSRP routing
mechanism", which is reasonably compelling.)

Section 4.8

[obligatory griping about IPv4, SHA-1, date two years in the past, etc.]

Is there value in showing a corresponding SDP answer?

Do we want to say anything about backslash-wrapping of long lines for
readability (and/or reference draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding)?

Section 5.4

  message.  Therefore all sent MSRP chunks including the MSRP chunk
  header SHALL have lengths of less than or equal to the value of the
  peer's "a=max-message-size" attribute, which is associated with the
  data channel's SCTP association.

nit: perhaps the "including the MSRP chunk header" is better off being
applied to the lengths that are less than the message-size rather than
being indicated as a type of chunk.

Section 8

  Note that discussion in [RFC4975] on MSRP message attribution to
  remote identities applies to data channel transport.

nit: the phrase "message attribution" does not appear in RFC 4975,
though I do see just a single usage of "attribution" in Section 14.5
"Other Security Concerns", which seems like it matches up to what's
being discussed here.  Would a section reference in RFC 4975 help the
reader to locate the intended discussion?

Section 9.3

  +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
  | Contact name:        | IESG                                      |
  | Contact email:        | iesg@ietf.org                            |
  | Attribute name:      | file-date                                |
  | Usage level:          | dcsa(msrp)                                |
  | Purpose:              | Indicate a date related to the file in an |
  |                      | MSRP file transfer negotiation.          |
  | Reference:            | RFCXXXX                                  |
  +-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

nit(?): should this be "one or more dates"?

Section 12.1

draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocols appears unreferenced other than the
changelog (which presumably is not normative, though I expect the RFC
Editor to just remove it entirely during publication).

We don't actually cite draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp anywhere that looks
like a normative manner, though the changelog says that this is
normative for use of the a=max-message-size attribute lines, so maybe
another citation or two is in order?

RFC 7977 is only mentioned in the Introduction as a thing that MSRP was
previously specified for, which hardly seems normative.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document esp. for the new authors as it appears that this document had a rough ride.

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
"Compared to WebSockets, which provide...", I found no references to back up all claims about WebRTC (e.g., nothing about "telemetry"). Adding some informative references would help the reader.

-- Section 4.1 --
Out of curiosity, what does "dc" stands for ? Data-channel ? While not required, a short explanation would be nice to the reader.

-- Section 4.8 --
It is nice to have an example but using IPv4 in an example in 2020... humm.... a little bit outdated ? ;-)

-- Section 5.4 --
The rest of the document is about 'data channel' but this section uses 'SCTP stream'. AFAIK, they are the same in the WebRTC world but some consistent language would be better (as I am not a WebRTC expert, I can be wrong). Should SCTP be an informative reference?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-21. 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 three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/

the existing registration for:

msrps

will be changed to have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the existing reference.

Second, in the WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry on the WebSocket Protocol Registries page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/

the existing registration for:

msrp

will be changed to have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the existing reference.

Third, in the att-field registry on the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/

fifteen, existing registrations are to be modified.

IANA Question --> for the fifteen modified registrations, should the new reference be [ RFC-to-be ] only, or [ RFC-to-be ] in addition to the existing reference?

As this document requests modifications 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."

The fifteen modifications are as follows:

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'setup' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: setup
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Negotiate the active role of an MSRP
| session over a data channel as per
| Section 4.5
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'path' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: path
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Indicate an endpoint, but not used for
| routing, as described in Section 4.4
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'msrp-cema' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: msrp-cema
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: | Indicate that the routing of MSRP
| messages transported on a data channel is
| more similar to the MSRP CEMA mechanism
| than the legacy MSRP routing mechanism.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'accept-types' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: accept-types
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Contain the list of media types that the
| endpoint is willing to receive.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'accept-wrapped-types' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: accept-wrapped-types
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Contain the list of media types that the
| endpoint is willing to receive in an MSRP
| message with multipart content.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'max-size' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: max-size
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Indicate the largest message an MSRP
| endpoint wishes to accept.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'sendonly' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: sendonly
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Negotiate the direction of the media flow
| on an MSRP data channel.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'recvonly' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: recvonly
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Negotiate the direction of the media flow
| on an MSRP data channel.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'inactive' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: inactive
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Negotiate the direction of the media flow
| on an MSRP data channel.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'sendrecv' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: sendrecv
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Negotiate the direction of the media flow
| on an MSRP data channel.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-selector' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-selector
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Indicate a file in an MSRP file transfer
| negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-transfer-id' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-transfer-id
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Indicate a unique identifier of the file
| transfer operation in an MSRP file
| transfer negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-disposition' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-disposition
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Provide a suggestion to the other
| endpoint about the intended disposition
| of the file in an MSRP file transfer
| negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-date' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-date
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Indicate a date related to the file in an
| MSRP file transfer negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-icon' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-icon
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Contain a pointer to a small preview icon
| representing the contents of the file in
| an MSRP file transfer negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

The usage level "dcsa(msrp)" is added to the registration of the SDP 'file-range' attribute in the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters "att-field" sub-registry as follows:

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: IESG
| Contact email: iesg@ietf.org
| Attribute name: file-range
| Usage level: dcsa(msrp)
| Purpose: Contain the range of transferred octets
| of the file in an MSRP file transfer negotiation.
| Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-07-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mmusic@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, bo.burman@ericsson.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (MSRP over Data Channels) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control WG (mmusic) to consider the following document: - 'MSRP over Data
Channels'
  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 2020-07-21. 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 specifies how the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
  can be transported as a WebRTC data channel sub-protocol, using the
  SDP offer/answer generic data channel negotiation framework to
  establish such a channel.  Two network configurations are supported:
  connecting two MSRP over data channel endpoints; and a gateway
  configuration, connecting an MSRP over data channel endpoint with an
  MSRP over TCP or TLS endpoint.  This document updates RFC4975.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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?

Proposed Standard, shown as "Standards Track", which is appropriate since it is providing normative specification of how to use MSRP as subprotocol in WebRTC data channels.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies how the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
can be transported as a WebRTC data channel sub-protocol, using the
SDP offer/answer generic data channel negotiation framework to
establish such a channel.  Two network configurations are supported:
connecting two MSRP over data channel endpoints; and a gateway
configuration, connecting an MSRP over data channel endpoint with an
MSRP over TCP or TLS endpoint.  This document updates RFC 4975.


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 WG document was expired for almost a year, twice, due to unresponsive authors, despite repeated efforts to encourage authors and trying to find other people willing to take authorship. No technical controversy could be noted. The document was marked as dead WG document in September 2018. 3GPP delegates noticed the change of status and that there are references to this draft from 3GPP specifications, after which a new author was finally stepping up, resulting in MMUSIC re-adoption in April 2019 after affirmation that the new author was willing to drive the document until publication. Since then, progress was fairly good with multiple revisions and receiving decent review in the WG. One of the co-authors is also active in 3GPP standardization, which should help ensure that the document is suitable for the mentioned 3GPP references.

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?

There are no known implementations of the protocol beyond experimental proof-of-concept. Some vendors have indicated plans to implement. 3GPP TS 24.371 references this draft normatively when MSRP is to be supported in 3GPP WebRTC datachannel context.

The general document structure and content follows that of draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel (in RFC Editor's Queue at the time of writing) which is describing anoter sub-protocol (t140) to WebRTC data channel and that received significant review with respect to how to best structure such document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bo Burman is the Document Shepherd.
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 read through versions -11, -17, -19, and -20 (the current version) of the document in its entirety and found no remaining issues in -20.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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 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?

The authors have 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 disclosures were filed.

(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 consensus is as solid as can be expected. It is mostly representing the strong concurrence of a few active individuals beyond the authors, but where  those individuals have solid IETF and MMUSIC experience.

(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.

There is one ID nit warning about a non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN, but that is part of the change history and will be removed before publication.

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

Not applicable.

(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 (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

The document updates RFC 4975, which is shown in the header, abstract, and further mentioned in the introduction. Section 7 is dedicated to describe this update.

(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 document shepherd has reviewed IANA registrations in accordance with the above and found no issues.

(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 are requested.

(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.

The extended MSRP URI syntax in section 4.1 is trivial.

(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?

Not applicable.

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?

Proposed Standard, shown as "Standards Track", which is appropriate since it is providing normative specification of how to use MSRP as subprotocol in WebRTC data channels.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document specifies how the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
can be transported as a WebRTC data channel sub-protocol, using the
SDP offer/answer generic data channel negotiation framework to
establish such a channel.  Two network configurations are supported:
connecting two MSRP over data channel endpoints; and a gateway
configuration, connecting an MSRP over data channel endpoint with an
MSRP over TCP or TLS endpoint.  This document updates RFC 4975.


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 WG document was expired for almost a year, twice, due to unresponsive authors, despite repeated efforts to encourage authors and trying to find other people willing to take authorship. No technical controversy could be noted. The document was marked as dead WG document in September 2018. 3GPP delegates noticed the change of status and that there are references to this draft from 3GPP specifications, after which a new author was finally stepping up, resulting in MMUSIC re-adoption in April 2019 after affirmation that the new author was willing to drive the document until publication. Since then, progress was fairly good with multiple revisions and receiving decent review in the WG. One of the co-authors is also active in 3GPP standardization, which should help ensure that the document is suitable for the mentioned 3GPP references.

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?

There are no known implementations of the protocol beyond experimental proof-of-concept. Some vendors have indicated plans to implement. 3GPP TS 24.371 references this draft normatively when MSRP is to be supported in 3GPP WebRTC datachannel context.

The general document structure and content follows that of draft-ietf-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel (in RFC Editor's Queue at the time of writing) which is describing anoter sub-protocol (t140) to WebRTC data channel and that received significant review with respect to how to best structure such document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bo Burman is the Document Shepherd.
Murray Kucherawy is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 read through versions -11, -17, -19, and -20 (the current version) of the document in its entirety and found no remaining issues in -20.

(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.

Not applicable.

(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 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?

The authors have 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 disclosures were filed.

(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 consensus is as solid as can be expected. It is mostly representing the strong concurrence of a few active individuals beyond the authors, but where  those individuals have solid IETF and MMUSIC experience.

(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.

There is one ID nit warning about a non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN, but that is part of the change history and will be removed before publication.

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

Not applicable.

(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 (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(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.

The document updates RFC 4975, which is shown in the header, abstract, and further mentioned in the introduction. Section 7 is dedicated to describe this update.

(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 document shepherd has reviewed IANA registrations in accordance with the above and found no issues.

(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 are requested.

(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.

The extended MSRP URI syntax in section 4.1 is trivial.

(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?

Not applicable.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Maridi Makaraju , Richard Ejzak , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler , Jose Recio , Jerome Marcon , Keith Drage

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Maridi Makaraju , Richard Ejzak , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler , Jose Recio , Jerome Marcon , Keith Drage

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Richard Ejzak , Maridi Makaraju , Jerome Marcon , Jose Recio , Keith Drage , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Richard Ejzak , Maridi Makaraju , Jerome Marcon , Jose Recio , Keith Drage , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Richard Ejzak , Maridi Makaraju , Jerome Marcon , Jose Recio , Keith Drage , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org, Richard Ejzak , Maridi Makaraju , Jerome Marcon , Jose Recio , Keith Drage , Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler