Shepherd writeup

Shepherd writeup for Content Splicing for RTP Sessions 
(draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-09) resubmitted to be published
as Informational RFC. 

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 
        Magnus Westerlund is the document shepherd.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed?  
        The document has had okay number of reviews in the WG. There has
        been no review outside of the WG to my knowledge. No significant
        concern over the amount of review. 

        After the IESG returned the document to the WG with significant amount
       of feedback the changes proposed by the editor has been reviewed by at
       least two key WG participants and the shepherd before being forward. 

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 
        No concerns and no IPR disclosure has been submitted.

  (1.e) 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 significant amount of discussion around the direction
        of the approach that is recommended. This resulted in the end 
        a strong consensus and many active WG participants has participated
        in that part. 

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 
        Yes, it has a split list. Although that isn't necessary considering
        it is an informational document.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 
        Yes, it is correct. 

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker? 
        No formal language.

  (1.k) 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 memo outlines how to perform RTP splicing.  Splicing is a process 
        that replaces the content of the main multimedia stream with other 
        multimedia content, and delivers the substitutive multimedia content to 
        receiver for a period of time.  This memo provides some RTP splicing use 
        cases, then we enumerate a set of requirements and analyze whether an 
        existing RTP level middlebox can meet these requirements, at last we 
        provide concrete guidelines for how the chosen middlebox works to handle 
        RTP splicing.

     Working Group Summary 
        This document had firm WG consensus behind it and was believed to have
        been adequate reviewed. The IESG however had substantial amount of comments
        and the document was sent back to the WG. It has been updated and WG last 
        called again. Reviews of the changes has been done by at least two key-participants.

     Document Quality 
        The shepherd is unaware of any specific implementation but 
        expect this functionality to be implemented in the field.
        How well they follow the proposed method is unknown.