Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update

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
an Informational RFC, This document discusses point to point and multi-endpoint
topologies used in Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)-based environments. The
type is indicated in 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
discusses point to point and multi-endpoint topologies used in Real-time
Transport Protocol (RTP)-based environments.  In particular, centralized
topologies commonly employed in the video conferencing industry are mapped to
the RTP terminology. 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? This is not a protocol. The document
describes existing topologies and describes the implications on RTP and RTCP
for implementers. 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
version 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 good reviews before and
during the WGLC.

(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

(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. 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. No
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 for formal review
(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 (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. This document obsoletes RFC5117, mentioned in the
abstract and the introduction and listed on the title page. (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). No IANA action

(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 IANA action (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. No need
Back