Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-12

To be Published as: Standards Track

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 16 December 2014

   (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?

This document is a revision to (obsoletes) an existing standard, thus Proposed
Standard is the proper type of RFC and it is indicated as such in the title
page header.

    (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 specifies the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP).
BFCP is used between floor participants and floor control servers,
and between floor chairs (i.e., moderators) and floor control
servers.  Floor control is a means to manage joint or exclusive access to
shared resources in a (multiparty) conferencing environment.
Thereby, floor control complements other functions -- such as
conference and media session setup, conference policy manipulation,
and media control -- that are realized by other protocols.
This document obsoletes RFC 4582.

        Working Group Summary:

This document was thoroughly reviewed by members of the BFCPBIS WG.

         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?

There are existing implementations of RFC 4582 and this document has
been implemented by at least one vendor.  The formation of the BFCPBIS WG
was triggered by the IMTC, who defined the use of BFCP in their SIP Best
Current Practices for Video profile.  The vendors that had implemented BFCP
found the need to also use UDP in certain situations, thus the interested
parties brought the proposal, along with an initial version of this draft
to the IETF (DISPATCH WG).

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

Mary Barnes is the Document Shepherd.  Alissa Cooper is the Responsible AD.

     (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 has thoroughly reviewed the -10 version of this document
and had verified that her comments and those of other reviewers have been
addressed in this version of the document.

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

There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

     (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.

    (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 interested community has discussed those issues
        and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
        detail those concerns here.

The only concern I have is that one of the authors (who also happens to be
one of the WG chairs) has not been at all engaged in email discussions of
this document over the past 2 years. My only concern might be whether he
will be responsive during AUTH48 and potentially raise non-trivial issues.

    (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.

No. There has been no response from Keith Drage after repeated emails. All the
other authors have confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures that ought to
have been filed.

    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
        disclosures.

No.

    (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
        document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is WG consensus that this document is ready to progress. All WGLC comments
and subsequent comments have been addressed. No one has expressed concerns
about its progression.

    (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.

The document was checked using idnits 2.13.01.  There is a warning with regards
to unused references, which can be appropriately addressed by the RFC editor or
in any revisions made prior to publication.   In addition, there is a warning
about the IP address format, however, the IP addresses in the examples in this
document are within the documentation range.  There are a few FQDN that haven't
been properly changed to documentation values, but those changes can be made
along with any other LC comments.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
         criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
         reviews.

This document does not require any 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.

No.

    (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
         interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document obsoletes RFC 4582.  The differences and additions between
this document and are described in section section 16.

    (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 clearly identifies the IANA considerations. This document
identifies the two existing registries (defined in RFC 4582) to which new
entries are being added.  The document also indicates that the references
in the existing registries need to be changed to the RFC # assigned when this
document is published.

    (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.

This document defines no new IANA registries, thus no expert review is required.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
         sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
         XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF for this document was validated using Bill Fenner's ABNF web parsing
tool.

Back