As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
This is a standard track RFC defining new RTCP packets and procedures for synchronizing media between multiple sites.
The title page header indicates it.
(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:
This document defines a new RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packet Type and RTCP Extended Report (XR) Block Type to be used for achieving Inter-Destination Media Synchronization (IDMS). IDMS is the process of synchronizing playout across multiple geographically distributed media receivers. Typical use cases in which IDMS is usefull are social TV, shared service control (i.e. applications where two or more geographically separated users are watching a media stream together), distance learning, networked video walls, networked loudspeakers, etc.
Working Group Summary:
This document went through a working group last call. There were comments and the document was updated to resolve all comments. The work started in ETSI and since it have to do with RTCP it was brought to the IETF AVTCore WG. The last issue that took some time was to update the ETSI document clarifying that the change control will be at the IETF.
The document got good reviews from AVTcore members.
Roni Even is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.
(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 shepherd reviewed the document very carefully in all the versions including the last one 09.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document got good review by multiple people from AVTcore and all comments 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.
No need for any such review.
(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.
(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 shepherd has confirmed with all authors.
(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 disclosure
(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 was a strong consensus to start this work at the IETF when it was brought. Multiple people contributed to the work and as a result the WG identified two new work items that are addressed in other new documents which are currently in progress.
(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.)
(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 in this document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-03 that will start WGLC very soon.
(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.
(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.
(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).
This document registers new values in three IANA registries. The registration was reviewed by the AD and it follows the registration requirements.
No new IANA registries are defined.
(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.
There is an ABNF definition for using the new RTCP packet using RFC3264 offer answer. This is common for any new RTCP packet type.