Shepherd writeup

Publication request for A Taxonomy of Grouping Semantics and Mechanisms for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources (draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06)

A first draft of the document was produced by a team of people led by Jonathan Lennox as draft-lennox-raiarea-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-00 in February 2013. There were three further iterations as an author draft until the document was adopted as a working group document by the AVTEXT working group in November 2013, with Bo Burman taking over the lead editorship. The document has been through six iterations as a working group document, with working group last call occurring in November 2014. While the authors of the draft have been limited, a significant team of experts has been working on the draft including Jonathan Lennox, Kevin Gross, Bo Burman, Magnus Westerlund, Suhas Nandakumar, Gonzalo Salgueiro, Harald Alvestrand.

(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? 

The intended status is Informational. 

The document contains terminology which can be used in other documents, but contains no normative requirements in its own right.

The title page does indicate the intended status.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. 
The terminology about, and associations among, Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) sources can be complex and somewhat opaque.  This document describes a number of existing and proposed relationships among RTP sources, and attempts to define common terminology for discussing protocol entities and their relationships.

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? 


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? 

The document itself contains terminology only, and no requirements, so is not directly implementable in its own right. The document has been developed in parallel with a number of specifications in the AVTCORE, PAYLOAD, MMUSIC, RTCWEB, and CLUE working groups, and has been reviewed by editors of documents in those groups.
Apart from the regular GenArt review, no further external reviews are identified as needed.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

Keith Drage is the document shepherd.

Ben Campbell 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. 

The document has been read through, manually scanned for NITs, reviewed for clarity, and all references checked. Where appropriate automated reviews have also occurred.

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

The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

(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. 

Apart from the regular GenArt review, no further external reviews are identified as needed.

(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?

Each author has independently confirmed that they have reviewed for IPR and see no need for filing declarations

(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 disclosures have been filed on this document, nor on its predecessor document.

(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 document represents WG consensus and has been read and reviewed by a significant number of experts.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
Apart from the regular GenArt review, no further external reviews are identified as needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

All the references in the document are informative, and that is what would be expected, given the nature of the document.

(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 are no normative references in the document. Some of the informative references are yet to be completed, but publication should proceed without waiting for any of these references. (Obviously if RFC numbers become available before publication they should be used).

(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. 

The document is informational in nature and all the references are informative 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. 

The document does not change the status of any other RFC.

(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). 
The document makes no IANA registrations and requires none.

(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. 

The document creates 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. 

The document has no contents written in a formal language.