Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability

(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?

Standards Track (Proposed Standard) - mentioned in the 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:
An MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS) is a standard container format used in
the transmission and storage of multimedia data. Unicast/Multicast
MPEG2 TS over RTP is widely deployed in IPTV systems. This document
defines an RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block
that allows the reporting of MPEG2 TS decodability statistics metrics
related to transmissions of MPEG2 TS over RTP. The metrics specified
in the RTCP XR Block are related to Program specific information
carried in MPEG TS.

Working Group Summary:

The document was reviewed by the key contributors in the WG, and the comments
were addressed accordingly.

Document Quality:

MPEG2 is a mature and widely deployed technology. The document was reviewed by
Christer Holmberg for the SDP directorate. At least one contributor expressed
the intentions of his employer to implement the future RFC.

Personnel:

Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper 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.

I reviewed the document and I believe that it is ready for submission.

(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.

The usual reviews for the XRBLOCK documents. SDP directorate review was already
performed.

(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.

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

None.

(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 number of participants in the XRBLOCK WG is not too large. The current
active participants showed consensus on submitting 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.

idnits runs clean. One warning about a normative reference to an ETSI TR can be
ignored, as ETSI TRs have been considered in other cases as holding the same
level as IETF Standards Track documents for these purpose.

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

SDP review was performed, and the comments made by the reviewer were addressed.

(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. See (11)

(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.

No. See (11)

(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.

N/A

(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 is required to add one new value in two existing registries, according to
procedures described in RFC 3611 and RFC 4566. No problems here.

(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.

(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. N/A
Back