Shepherd writeup

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-24

To be Published as: Standards Track

Prepared by: Mary Barnes ( on 29 August 2018
   (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 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 defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP) offer/answer
procedures for negotiating and establishing Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
steams.  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.
This document obsoletes RFC 4583.  
        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 4583 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).   

         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area

Mary Barnes is the Document Shepherd.  Adam Roach 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 -24 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.  Alan Ford and others
provided detailed reviews over the course of the progression of this document. 

     (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.

Yes, this document has been reviewed by a member of the SDP directorate.
Paul Kyzivat performed the SDP review.  

    (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.

I have no concerns or issues of which the responsible AD should be aware. 

    (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.

Yes. All the 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


    (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.) 


    (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.

The document was checked using idnits 2.15.01.  There is a comment about three RFCs looking like references.  While they aren't actually annotated as references in the XML, there are hyperlinks in the PDF, so that shouldn't be a problem.  There are warnings about
out of date versions of references that will be fixed during the publication process.

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

This document does not require any formal review.  

    (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 


    (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. 


    (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 4583.  The differences and additions between 
this document and are described in section section 14.

    (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 adds
new values to the existing SDP parameters registry.  New values are defined for the 
proto field and one new value is added to the attribute field (beyond those defined
in RFC 4583).  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 

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 portions of the document that use formal language are snippets and thus 
haven't been validated.  Examples were created manually and were reviewed 
for accuracy by the individual doing the SDP directorate review.