As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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. The title page has an intended status of "Standards Track".
(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 WebSocket [RFC6455] protocol enables two-way message exchange between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection, optionally secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]. This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new scenarios.
The initial protocol handshake makes use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] semantics, allowing the WebSocket protocol to reuse existing HTTP infrastructure.
Working Group Summary:
The document was initially presented in DISPATCH where it was decided there was sufficient interest in the problem to extend the BFCPBIS charter and milestones to include it. There were no competing documents and the draft was quickly adopted as a working group document. Within the working group the scope was clarified to include BFCP over TCP only. It was challenging at times to find reviewers for the draft, so it progressed slowly despite there being few technical issues. The most significant discussions were around SDP procedures, including the decision to create another draft [draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] covering the specification of the SDP ws-uri since this URI is not specific to BFCP.
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 authors are aware of two server-side implementations and one client-side — none of them is open source. There are also partial client and server implementations that exercise what is covered in this draft. Other companies indicated plans to implement this in their WebRTC gateway.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Charles Eckel <firstname.lastname@example.org> is the document shepherd.
Alissa Cooper <email@example.com> 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.
This document has been reviewed several times both in its entirety as well as diffs for specific changes. I believe this version of the document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any 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.
This document required expert review from the SDP Directorate. The review as performed by Dan Wing based on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10 (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/SOqNvB9xMPpN6EkS1hKh-g2DBm4 for complete review). The review called attention to some inconsistencies between this draft and draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05, and also some descriptions that were too vague and requirements that were too weak. These were addressed by draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-11 and draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-06.
No other expert reviews were 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.
(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?
(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 has been 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?
The working group does not have many active participants, but the consensus represents that of the significant portion of those that are active. There are no objections to the current version of the draft.
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 thorough.
Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05
This is deemed acceptable and unavoidable due to there being several work in progress drafts that reference each other. It will need to be resolved at the time of publication.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document required expert review from the SDP Directorate. The results of those reviews are listed in (5).
(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?
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(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.
(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 IANA considerations were thoroughly reviewed and all issues have been resolved.
(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.
Normal IANA review procedures are sufficient.
(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.
None beyond that listed previously.