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 document defines new RTP payload formats for the
Forward Error Correction (FEC) packets The type is indicated on 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: This document
defines new RTP payload formats for the Forward Error Correction (FEC)
packets that are generated by the non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes
from source media encapsulated in RTP. These parity codes are systematic
codes, where a number of FEC repair packets are generated from a set of source
packets from one or more source RTP streams. These FEC repair packets are sent
in a redundancy RTP stream separate from the source RTP stream(s) that carries
the source packets. RTP source packets that were lost in transmission can be
reconstructed using the source and repair packets that were received. The
non-interleaved and interleaved parity codes which are defined in this
specification offer a good protection against random and bursty packet losses,
respectively, at a cost of decent complexity.
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? The payload was developed by members from
different vendors and is part of the RTCWEB deliveries. Magnus Westerlund and
Steve Botzko did a thorough review of the document. A request for a media type
review was sent to ietf-types and media-types mailing lists.
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 versions
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 reviews before and
during the two WGLC. The comments during the WGLCs were addressed.
(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. None.
(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. 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. There
are IPR statements from Cisco
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?id=draft-ietf-payload-flexible-fec-scheme&submit=draft
It was mentioned and there were no objections to publish the document with this
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.
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? None (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).
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 IANA 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. None were needed