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.