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
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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.)
(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
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
(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?
(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.