Skip to main content

Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-18

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-03-03
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-01-18
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-01-13
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2016-11-15
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2016-11-13
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2016-09-19
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from AUTH48
2016-09-16
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-09-06
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-08-19
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-08-19
18 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-08-19
18 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-08-18
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-08-18
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-08-18
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-08-18
18 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-08-18
18 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-08-18
18 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-08-18
18 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-08-18
18 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-08-18
18 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-08-18
18 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-18.txt
2016-07-20
17 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-07-20
17 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17.txt
2016-06-17
16 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-06-13
16 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
Thanks for address my discuss! Thanks for all the work and discussion!

Final comment/question: Should reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative?
2016-06-13
16 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-06-13
16 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

---

(1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS?

(2) Section 4.3:

  "If …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

---

(1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS?

(2) Section 4.3:

  "If such a reduction in
  sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY
  gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable
  amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the
  problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)."

In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason.
2016-06-13
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-06-13
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-06-13
16 Colin Perkins IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-06-13
16 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-16.txt
2016-05-05
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-05-04
15 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
scott bradner performed the opsdir review
2016-05-04
15 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-05-04
15 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-05-04
15 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-04
15 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-05-04
15 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-05-04
15 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-05-03
15 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-05-03
15 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-05-03
15 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

I just have a nit and a random query...

- nit: The abstract says "It is expected that future
standards-track congestion control algorithms …
[Ballot comment]

I just have a nit and a random query...

- nit: The abstract says "It is expected that future
standards-track congestion control algorithms for RTP will
operate within the envelope defined by this memo." That
seems both unwise and unlikely to work to me. Unwise in
that you're trying to control the future which seems like
it'll just generate heat and not light, and unlikely to
work since it's not clear to me that any CC scheme can
take into account circuit breaker constants configured on
a node that may not be known anywhere else. I'd say better
would be to say that we hope that future CC algorithms
will be consistent with this and leave it at that.
However, if that sentence is the product of a bunch of
haggling then it's probably better to leave it as-is and
I'll just hold my nose a bit;-) (Same sentence is in the
intro - same comment.)

- query: Assuming people have implemented some or all of
this, I wondered if it'd be a good idea to document some
of the ways in which those implementations went wrong,
i.e. bugs already fixed, especially if there were any
that'd result in the circuit not being broken when it
ought be. But that's probably too late or better done in
some other document for now, so feel free to ignore me.
2016-05-03
15 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-05-03
15 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-05-03
15 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot discuss]
This is about one point in section 7 (ECN) that I think is wrong but I would like to get some feedback from …
[Ballot discuss]
This is about one point in section 7 (ECN) that I think is wrong but I would like to get some feedback from the authors:
"then ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD
  be treated as if they were lost when calculating if the congestion-
  based RTP circuit breaker"
(also section 5: "The count of ECN-CE marked packets
  contained in those ECN feedback reports is counted towards the number
  of lost packets reported")

We are currently discussion mechanisms where the AQM in the congested network node sends  much more CE markings than one would see loss (when using TCP) for the same level of congestion. When treating ECN-CE similar to loss, such a different behavior could trigger the circuit breaker unnecessarily. Potentially ECN-CE might not need to be considered here at all, because as long as there are (only) ECN-CE marks (and no loss) all data is transmitted correctly to the receiver and therefore there is no need to trigger a circuit breaker.

Further also in section 7: "ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if they were lost for the
  purposes of congestion control"

This document should not impose any SHOULDs for congestion control as this doc is only about circuit breaker sand therefore the sentence above should be removed.
2016-05-03
15 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Few more minor comments:

1) reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative
2) How is the loss rate in 4.3 calculated if some …
[Ballot comment]
Few more minor comments:

1) reference [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker] should be normative
2) How is the loss rate in 4.3 calculated if some (but no all) RR are lost?
3) I don't think that most of the text on congestion control in section 2 (as well as the abstract) is necessary for this doc (but it also don't really hurt)
2016-05-03
15 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-05-02
15 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
(1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS?

(2) Section 4.3:

  "If such a reduction in
  sending …
[Ballot comment]
(1) Did the WG discuss BCP status for this rather than PS?

(2) Section 4.3:

  "If such a reduction in
  sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY
  gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable
  amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the
  problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)."

In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason.
2016-05-02
15 Alissa Cooper Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper
2016-05-02
15 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
Many thanks for this work. I expect to ballot YES once we discuss and resolve the issue below.

In Section 4.5, I understand …
[Ballot discuss]
Many thanks for this work. I expect to ballot YES once we discuss and resolve the issue below.

In Section 4.5, I understand the need to base the re-start of the media flow on a human user intervention, but I find it puzzling that this is framed in terms of "restarting the call" rather than "restarting the flow." The recommendation in Section 8 is that senders MUST treat each session independently, but ending/restarting "the call" seems to assume that multiple flows will be treated together.

One situation I'm thinking of is one where my audio and video traffic are in separate RTP flows and are routed along different paths for whatever reason. Some network problem is encountered in the video path, triggering a circuit breaker. The "call" doesn't necessarily need to be terminated and re-started, because my audio can continue just fine. This is another case where the application may not want to rely on a human user re-start (if you leave it up to me whether to re-start my video, I'll certainly try to re-start it right away). I think the text in this section needs to be re-phrased to separate the case where a circuit breaker triggering on a single 3-tuple causes a whole call to end (either because the call consisted of a single flow or because all of the flows were encountering congestion and it takes just one circuit breaker to trigger the end of it) from cases where it causes only that flow to be suspended, and reference Section 8 to make it clear that the unit of operation for "ceasing" and "re-starting" is a single flow unless the sender chooses to group flows.

Furthermore (and this is not a DISCUSS point but I leave it here since it follows from the points above), the normative recommendation in the first paragraph here doesn't really follow from the discussion of restarting the call. The recommendation is not to automatically re-start until indications are received that congestion has improved, which is different from waiting until a human user re-starts. I think this would be clearer if the normative recommendation came first and the human user case was discussed afterward.
2016-05-02
15 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
  "If such a reduction in
  sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY
  gradually increase the rate at which …
[Ballot comment]
  "If such a reduction in
  sending rate resolves the congestion problem, the sender MAY
  gradually increase the rate at which it sends data after a reasonable
  amount of time has passed, provided it takes care not to cause the
  problem to recur ("reasonable" is intentionally not defined here)."

In later sections you explain that thresholds are not specified because they are application-dependent. I think that would be useful to note here too as the reason for not defining "reasonable," assuming that is the reason.
2016-05-02
15 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-04-30
15 Colin Perkins IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-04-30
15 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-15.txt
2016-04-26
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot comment]
Thanks for working with me on my Discuss.
2016-04-26
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-04-19
14 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot discuss]
I really like this specification, and have two questions I'd like to understand before balloting YES ...

I'm looking at this text:

4.5.  …
[Ballot discuss]
I really like this specification, and have two questions I'd like to understand before balloting YES ...

I'm looking at this text:

4.5.  Ceasing Transmission

  What it means to cease transmission depends on the application.  The
  intention is that the application will stop sending RTP data packets
  to a particular destination 3-tuple (transport protocol, destination
  port, IP address), until the user makes an explicit attempt to
  restart the call.  It is important that a human user is involved in
  the decision to try to restart the call, since that user will
  eventually give up if the calls repeatedly trigger the circuit
  breaker.  This will help avoid problems with automatic redial systems
  from congesting the network.  Accordingly, RTP flows halted by the
  circuit breaker SHOULD NOT be restarted automatically unless the
                  ^^^^^^^^^^
  sender has received information that the congestion has dissipated,
  or can reasonably be expected to have dissipated.
 
and trying to understand why this is not MUST NOT. I'm trying to reconcile this with the RFC 2119 definition of SHOULD NOT, which is

4. SHOULD NOT  This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
  there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
  particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
  implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
  before implementing any behavior described with this label.
 
Could you help me understand when automatic restarts might be "acceptable or even useful"?

Reading on, I'm wondering if this text is anticipating

  It is recognised that the RTP implementation in some systems might
  not be able to determine if a call set-up request was initiated by a
  human user, or automatically by some scripted higher-level component
  of the system.
 
but definitely want to understand what you're thinking here.

I have a similar question about this text

  ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD be treated as if it were lost for the
  purposes of congestion control, when determining the optimal media
  sending rate for an RTP flow.  If an RTP sender has negotiated ECN
  support for an RTP session, and has successfully initiated ECN use on
  the path to the receiver [RFC6679], then ECN-CE marked packets SHOULD
                                                                  ^^^^^^
  be treated as if they were lost when calculating if the congestion-
  based RTP circuit breaker (Section 4.3) has been met. 

Could you help me understand why an implementation wouldn't do this?
2016-04-19
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-03-29
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-05
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2016-03-29
14 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-03-17
14 Colin Perkins IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-03-17
14 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-14.txt
2016-03-15
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Scott Bradner.
2016-03-10
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom.
2016-03-09
13 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-03-09
13 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-03-09
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-02-29
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-02-29
13 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-02-27
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2016-02-27
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2016-02-25
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-02-25
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-02-25
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2016-02-25
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom
2016-02-24
13 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-02-24
13 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Multimedia Congestion Control: Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP
  Sessions'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-09. 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


  The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is widely used in telephony,
  video conferencing, and telepresence applications.  Such applications
  are often run on best-effort UDP/IP networks.  If congestion control
  is not implemented in the applications, then network congestion will
  deteriorate the user's multimedia experience.  This acts as a safety
  measure to prevent starvation of network resources denying other
  flows from access to the Internet, such measures are essential for an
  Internet that is heterogeneous and for traffic that is hard to
  predict in advance.  This document does not propose a congestion
  control algorithm; instead, it defines a minimal set of RTP circuit-
  breakers.  Circuit-breakers are conditions under which an RTP sender
  needs to stop transmitting media data in order to protect the network
  from excessive congestion.  It is expected that, in the absence of
  severe congestion, all RTP applications running on best-effort IP
  networks will be able to run without triggering these circuit
  breakers.  Any future RTP congestion control specification will be
  expected to operate within the constraints defined by these circuit
  breakers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers/ballot/


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


2016-02-24
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was generated
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-02-24
13 Ben Campbell
This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13. While I do have some comments and questions, I don't think anything here needs to block IETF last …
This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13. While I do have some comments and questions, I don't think anything here needs to block IETF last call. Please address these along with any other last call feedback.

Substantive
===========

-4, third paragraph, sentence starting with "This approach SHOULD NOT be used..."

Does this mean that, in addition to the fact that non-RTCP peers shouldn’t be on the network in the first place, a circuit-breaker implementation shouldn’t talk to them even if they are? That is, even if the peer has a "good reason" (in an RFC 2119 sense) to violate that SHOULD, circuit-breaker implementations should ostracize it? :-)

-4.2, last paragraph, sentence starting with "In this case"

Does this imply that the SHOULD only applies if the sender has reason to believe that the SR or RR packets will be too large? or should the sender always behave this way?

How does this relate to the guidance (MAY) in section 8?

- 4.3, 6th paragraph:"Implementations that desire this extra sensitivity MAY use the full TCP throughput equation in the RTP circuit breaker. "

Is there potential for the extra sensitivity to do harm (beyond the higher calculation complexity)?

-4.4, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence:

Is there any potential guidance on reasonable lower limits to the time period considered "significant"?

- 12.2:

It seems like the following references might should be normative: I-D.ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker, RFC3168, RFC6679


Editorial
=========

- Abstract
s/"will deteriorate"/"will cause the deterioration of"
-- "This acts as a safety measure..."
What is the antecedent for “this”? Congestion control? The deterioration? (Also, this sentence contains a comma splice)

- 1:
A very short definition of what we mean by "circuit breaker" might be useful.

- 3:
It's a little odd to find 2119 keywords imbedded in term definitions. You might consider moving those to procedure sections. (OTOH, it may not be worth changing this late in the process.)

-4.2, last paragraph:
What would it even mean to maintain a timeout past the end of the related stream?

-4.3,

-- paragraph 6:
typo: s/throughout/throughput

-- paragraph 9: "MUST record the value of the fraction
  lost field in the report block"

Does this mean the field _from_ the report block? (That is, you aren't _writing_ the value in the report block?)

-9, last paragraph:

Is this paragraph really related to security? It sounds more like an operational consideration.
2016-02-19
13 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the …
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13

(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, and the draft indicates that it is intended for
standards track publication. It is the appropriate as it is a normative
definition of a procedure to follow.

(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:

  The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is widely used in telephony,
  video conferencing, and telepresence applications.  Such applications
  are often run on best-effort UDP/IP networks.  If congestion control
  is not implemented in the applications, then network congestion will
  deteriorate the user's multimedia experience.  This acts as a safety
  measure to prevent starvation of network resources denying other
  flows from access to the Internet, such measures are essential for an
  Internet that is heterogeneous and for traffic that is hard to
  predict in advance.  This document does not propose a congestion
  control algorithm; instead, it defines a minimal set of RTP circuit-
  breakers.  Circuit-breakers are conditions under which an RTP sender
  needs to stop transmitting media data in order to protect the network
  from excessive congestion.  It is expected that, in the absence of
  severe congestion, all RTP applications running on best-effort IP
  networks will be able to run without triggering these circuit
  breakers.  Any future RTP congestion control specification will be
  expected to operate within the constraints defined by these circuit
  breakers.

Working Group Summary:

The WG has been quite diligent in working on this. There has been
discussion if the specification addresses the right issue, and if the
perimeter behavior it establish is the appropriate one. That consensus
is definitely a rough consensus. A very good number of people have
commented on the specification.

Document Quality:

There has been significant input, including simulations both for wired
and wirelless networks, the result of these simulations are referenced
by the specification. Simon Perreault at JIVE did a trial deployment in
their service. All of this has helped improving the solution and its
definition significantly and helped verifying the behavior of the
circuit breakers.


Personnel:

Magnus Westerlund is the document shepherd.
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 WG shepherd has reviewed the document several times during the
development of the document. While doing the shepherds writeup the
shepherd has checked the I-D checklist against the document.

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

Not really, there where some hope that someone would perform updated
simulations with the latest changes to the algorithm, that has
unfortunately not happen.

(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 such need deemed necessary.

(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 exists.

(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, they have.

(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 have beeen 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?

There is a strong consensus with a good number of people involved. The
WG last call was also cross posted to both RTCWEB and RMCAT to ensure
both a direct consumer and the people involved in the congestion control
algorithm deployment that will be restricted has gotten opportunity to
review the WG output prior to requesting publication.

(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 ID nits found. The ID nite tool do report on possible pre-5378 work.
That is because this document updates one aspect of RFC 3550, in regards
to round-robin reporting in RTCP when there are many SSRCs to report on
to ensure that the circuit breaker gets the most appropriate
information.

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

No such formal review criteria exists.

(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, all are published documents.

(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.

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.

This document does not change the status of any document, but updates
RFC 3550 in one minor aspect.

(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 only defines a procedure to follow. It does not define new
protocol fields, nor any extension points.

(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 are no formal language used.

2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund Changed document writeup
2016-02-17
13 Magnus Westerlund Changed document writeup
2016-02-10
13 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-13.txt
2016-02-09
12 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-12.txt
2015-12-11
11 Magnus Westerlund Concludes on 16th December 2015
2015-12-11
11 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-12-10
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-12-10
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-10-16
11 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-11.txt
2015-03-23
10 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-10.txt
2015-03-06
09 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-09.txt
2014-12-04
08 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-08.txt
2014-10-27
07 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-07.txt
2014-07-04
06 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-06.txt
2014-02-14
05 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-05.txt
2014-01-13
04 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-04.txt
2013-07-15
03 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-03.txt
2013-03-12
02 Magnus Westerlund Changed shepherd to Magnus Westerlund
2013-02-25
02 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-02.txt
2012-10-22
01 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-01.txt
2012-10-12
00 Colin Perkins New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-00.txt