Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-mmusic-rid

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?

Proposed Standard. The title page shows the Intended status as Standards Track,
which is appropriate given that the document updates RFC 4855

(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.

In this specification, we define a framework for specifying restrictions on RTP
streams in the Session Description Protocol. This framework defines a new "rid"
SDP attribute to unambiguously identify the RTP Streams within a RTP Session
and restrict the streams' payload format parameters in a codec-agnostic way
beyond what is provided with the regular Payload Types.

This specification updates RFC4855 to give additional guidance on choice of
Format Parameter (fmtp) names, and on their relation to the restrictions
defined by this document.

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?

No issues to note.

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?

There are currently no known implementations of the protocol, however the
document is a normative dependency for the W3C WebRTC specification.

Personnel

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

Flemming Andreasen is the Document Shepherd
Ben Campbell is the Responsible Area Direction

(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.

I have reviewed -08 of the draft in detail, which resulted in a few updates. I
have reviewed the subsequent changes as well.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concern. Several people have reviewed slightly earlier versions of the
document which are substantially similar to the current document. The recent
changes (up to -12) have been discussed on the WG list and in meetings as well.
Discussions on a related draft in the most recent IETF meeting (Singapore, 100)
recently led to a few minor updates related to RTP Stream Redundancy and RTP
Redundancy Payload Format. The resulting update was announced on the MMUSIC
mailing list with no further comments received.

(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.

N/A

(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.

The author has confirmed.

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

N/A

(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?

There is solid consensus in the WG with several people having both participated
and reviewed 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.)

N/A

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits found.
The idnits tool does produce a couple of warnings, however none of them apply
except for one: The reference to RFC 5226 should be replaced with a reference
to RFC 8126, which can be done during the publication process.

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

N/A

(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?

Yes. The document normatively references draft-ietf-avtext-rid-09 which is
currently with RFC Editor (in MISSREF state).

(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.

N/A

(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 status change, however the document does update RFC 4855, which is called
out on in the title page header and abstract. The document discusses the
updated mechanism in the Introduction but does not specifically call out RFC
4855.

(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 document defines a new SDP attribute which has a proper IANA registration
(per RFC 4566) in the IANA Considerations section

The document also defines a new IANA registry within the SDP parameters
registry. This new registry is well defined incl initial values and a
"Specification Required" policy for the registry. Adam Roach (adam@nostrum.com)
has volunteered to be Designated Expert for the registry.

(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.

See above.

(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.

ABNF has been verified with Bill Fenner's ABNF parser.

Back