Mapping RTP Streams to Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE) Media Captures
draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-14

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-14:

[This is based on the template version 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?

  This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
  and that is appropriate - it is defining required functionality for CLUE.

(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 describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is
  used in the context of the CLUE protocol (ControLling mUltiple
  streams for tElepresence).  It also describes the mechanisms and
  recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams defined in Session
  Description Protocol (SDP) to CLUE Media Captures and defines a new
  RTP header extension (CaptureId).

Working Group Summary

  Very late in the game we received substantial comments on this document
  from an RTP expert that had not been active in the work group. This
  led to some substantial revisions, primarily for alignment with other
  RTP-related documents. The primary effect was to remove a lot of text
  that was thought to be be confusing. Some tightening of language was
  also added to improve privacy.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    A prototype implementation has been built and demonstrated.

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

    Not yet.

  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?

    Colin Perkins and Magnus Westerlund made major comments that resulted
    in better alignment of this document with other work.

  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?

    N/A

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Alissa Cooper

(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 shepherd has been an active reviewer of this document throughout
  its development, and reviewed it again in its entirety while preparing
  this writeup.

  In the view of this shepherd the document is ready for
  publication?

    YES.

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

  No concerns. The document has been thoroughly reviewed.

(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.

  N/A

(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.

  None

(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, each author has stated they have no IPR claims on the document.

(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 has been filed against this document.

(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?

  There is strong WG consensus for this document by all those who have
  actively participated in the group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are no nits.

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

  N/A

(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?

  There are normative references to several other CLUE drafts.
  The intent is that these will all progress together.

  There is also a normative reference to
  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-36. That draft is
  itself near to completion. Waiting on it is acceptable.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  This document doesn't change the status of any other document.

(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 section is in good order.

(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.

  N/A - no new registries are defined.

(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.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point.  I'm leaving the other comments below for posterity; I think most of them have been resolved.

Substantive:

-3: The opening paragraph mentions "Point-to-Point, as well as Media-Mixing
  mixers, Media- Switching mixers, and Selective Forwarding Middleboxs." The section goes on to discuss the first two, but doesn't mention the last two.

-5, paragraph 4: "When the media provider
  switches the MC it sends within an MCC, it MUST send the captureID
  value for the MC just switched into the MCC."

Does MUST send mean MUST send both in the RTP header and as an RTCP SDES item, as in the previous sentence?

-5, paragraph 5:
It would be helpful to add a sentence or two clarifying the difference between an MCC that carries multiple MCs at the same time, and one that switch between MCs, but only carry one at a time.


Editorial:

- 1, 2nd paragraph: Please expand SSRC on first use.

-3, 2nd paragraph: Please expand SDES on first use.
-- "specified in CLUE use case [RFC7205]"
should that say "specified in the CLUE use case document [RFC7205]"?
-- "described using MCC."
missing article ("using an MCC."

-3, third paragraph: "If needed by CLUE
  endpoint,"
Missing article.

-4, 2nd paragraph: s/"slide video"/"side video"

-6, first paragraph: s/"made by"/"made up of"  ; or "comprises"

-9, 2nd paragraph: Please don't use 2119 to describe requirements from other documents, unless in a direct quote (in quotation marks.)

[Ballot comment]
Points from Vijay's Gen-ART review seem to not yet have been taken into account. They should, while they are editorial, they made sense at least to me.

[Ballot discuss]
I plan to ballot "yes" for this, but there's an issue in section 9 that I think needs to be fixed first:

In the second paragraph, the draft says "CLUE endpoints MUST support RTP/ SAVPF and DTLS-SRTP keying [RFC5764]." But the framework draft goes further by saying that media MUST be secured, and that DTLS-SRTP SHOULD be used unless the media is secured by some other mechanism. I think that readers will expect the mapping spec to be authoritative about that sort of thing. It's likely to be misleading to have it mention the requirement to support RTP/SAVPF and DTLS-SRTP without also mentioning the MUST be secured, SHOULD be used requirements. This can easily be fixed by mentioning the additional requirements and citing the framework.

[Ballot comment]
Substantive:

-3: The opening paragraph mentions "Point-to-Point, as well as Media-Mixing
  mixers, Media- Switching mixers, and Selective Forwarding Middleboxs." The section goes on to discuss the first two, but doesn't mention the last two.

-5, paragraph 4: "When the media provider
  switches the MC it sends within an MCC, it MUST send the captureID
  value for the MC just switched into the MCC."

Does MUST send mean MUST send both in the RTP header and as an RTCP SDES item, as in the previous sentence?

-5, paragraph 5:
It would be helpful to add a sentence or two clarifying the difference between an MCC that carries multiple MCs at the same time, and one that switch between MCs, but only carry one at a time.


Editorial:

- 1, 2nd paragraph: Please expand SSRC on first use.

-3, 2nd paragraph: Please expand SDES on first use.
-- "specified in CLUE use case [RFC7205]"
should that say "specified in the CLUE use case document [RFC7205]"?
-- "described using MCC."
missing article ("using an MCC."

-3, third paragraph: "If needed by CLUE
  endpoint,"
Missing article.

-4, 2nd paragraph: s/"slide video"/"side video"

-6, first paragraph: s/"made by"/"made up of"  ; or "comprises"

-9, 2nd paragraph: Please don't use 2119 to describe requirements from other documents, unless in a direct quote (in quotation marks.)

[Ballot comment]

- abstract: expanding CLUE (or avoiding the acronym) in the
abstract would be better (some abstract readers won't have
heard of CLUE before).

- section 9: I think the paragraph about RFC6562 should be
reduced to the first sentence only. The rest, if it were
correct (and I'm not sure), ought be part of an update to
6562. That's not just process-crap - I would expect the
state of the art to change here and when it does then the
right place to deal with that will be in an update to 6562.
(And hey, it's been 5 years already since we did that, so
maybe it'd be timely if someone re-checked the state of the
art here?) This could have been, but is not a DISCUSS
ballot, on the basis that if we do update 6562 then we
could have that formally UPDATE this RFC, but requiring
that we remember to do that seems worse than just leaving
it to a putative 6562bis. (And again, could we find someone
to re-check 6562 and perhaps consider if a BCP on the topic
would be a worthwhile thing?)

- Section 9 says: "In multi-party communication scenarios
using RTP Middleboxes; this middleboxes are trusted to
preserve the sessions' security." That is just wrong. The
middleboxes may or may not be trusted (or even known to
exist) by the parties to the call. What you should be
saying is that those middleboxes are REQUIRED, by this
protocol/spec, to not weaken security. (And this one is not
a DISCUSS because the rest of the para mitigates the
horrible first sentence;-)

[Ballot comment]
- I find the following sentence in the abstract rather confusing: „This document describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is used in the context of the CLUE protocol.“ I would just start with the second sentence directly and potentially also mention that this doc defines a new RTP Header Extension for the mapping.
- There is still some redundancy in this document that could be removed for more clarity.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/

a single, new header extension will be registered as follows:

Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:sdes:CaptureId
Description: CLUE CaptureId
Contact: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the RTP SDES item types subregistry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/

a single, new item type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Abbrev.: CCID
Name: CLUE CaptureId
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this registry also requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping@ietf.org, clue@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, "Paul Kyzivat" , clue-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mapping RTP streams to CLUE Media Captures) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the ControLling mUltiple streams for
tElepresence WG (clue) to consider the following document:
- 'Mapping RTP streams to CLUE Media Captures'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is
  used in the context of the CLUE protocol.  It also describes the
  mechanisms and recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams
  defined in SDP to CLUE Media Captures.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10:

[This is based on the template version 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?

  This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
  and that is appropriate - it is defining required functionality for CLUE.

(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 describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is
  used in the context of the CLUE protocol.  It also describes the
  mechanisms and recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams
  defined in SDP to CLUE Media Captures.

Working Group Summary

  Very late in the game we received substantial comments on this document
  from an RTP expert that had not been active in the work group. This
  led to some substantial revisions, primarily for alignment with other
  RTP-related documents. The primary effect was to remove a lot of text
  that was thought to be be confusing.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    A prototype implementation has been built and demonstrated.

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

    Not yet.

  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?

    Colin Perkins made major comments that resulted in better alignment
    of this document with other work.

  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?

    N/A

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Alissa Cooper

(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 shepherd has been an active reviewer of this document throughout
  its development, and reviewed it again in its entirety while preparing
  this writeup.

  In the view of this shepherd the document is ready for
  publication?

    YES.

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

  No concerns. The document has been well reviewed.

(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.

  N/A

(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.

  None

(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, each author has stated they have no IPR claims on the document.

(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 has been filed against this document.

(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?

  There is strong WG consensus for this document by all those who have
  actively participated in the group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are some references to outdated versions of drafts.
  Also, some unused references that arose due to text deletions
  in recent versions. These should be updated at 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.

  N/A

(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?

  There are normative references to several other CLUE drafts.
  The intent is that these will all progress together.

  There is also a normative reference to
  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-34. That draft is
  itself near to completion. Waiting on it is acceptable.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  This document doesn't change the status of any other document.

(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 section is in good order.

(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.

  N/A - no new registries are defined.

(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.

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10:

[This is based on the template version 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?

  This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
  and that is appropriate - it is defining required functionality for CLUE.

(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 describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is
  used in the context of the CLUE protocol.  It also describes the
  mechanisms and recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams
  defined in SDP to CLUE Media Captures.

Working Group Summary

  Very late in the game we received substantial comments on this document
  from an RTP expert that had not been active in the work group. This
  led to some substantial revisions, primarily for alignment with other
  RTP-related documents. The primary effect was to remove a lot of text
  that was thought to be be confusing.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    A prototype implementation has been built and demonstrated.

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

    Not yet.

  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?

    Colin Perkins made major comments that resulted in better alignment
    of this document with other work.

  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?

    N/A

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Alissa Cooper

(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 shepherd has been an active reviewer of this document throughout
  its development, and reviewed it again in its entirety while preparing
  this writeup.

  In the view of this shepherd the document is ready for
  publication?

    YES.

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

  No concerns. The document has been well reviewed.

(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.

  N/A

(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.

  None

(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, each author has stated they have no IPR claims on the document.

(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 has been filed against this document.

(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?

  There is strong WG consensus for this document by all those who have
  actively participated in the group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are some references to outdated versions of drafts.
  Also, some unused references that arose due to text deletions
  in recent versions. These should be updated at 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.

  N/A

(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?

  There are normative references to several other CLUE drafts.
  The intent is that these will all progress together.

  There is also a normative reference to
  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-34. That draft is
  itself near to completion. Waiting on it is acceptable.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  This document doesn't change the status of any other document.

(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 section is in good order.

(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.

  N/A - no new registries are defined.

(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.

Shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-07:

[This is based on the template version 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?

  This document is marked as Standards Track in the title page header,
  and that is appropriate - it is defining required functionality for CLUE.

(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 describes how the Real Time transport Protocol (RTP) is
  used in the context of the CLUE protocol.  It also describes the
  mechanisms and recommended practice for mapping RTP media streams
  defined in SDP to CLUE Media Captures.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing of particular note occurred during the development of
  this document.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    A prototype implementation has been built and demonstrated.

  Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

    Not yet.

  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?

    None that stand out.

  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?

    N/A

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

    Paul Kyzivat

  Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    Alissa Cooper

(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 shepherd has been an active reviewer of this document throughout
  its development, and reviewed it again in its entirety while preparing
  this writeup.

  In the view of this shepherd 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?

  No concerns. The document has been well reviewed.

(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.

  N/A

(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.

  None

(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, each author has stated they have no IPR claims on the document.

(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 has been filed against this document.

(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?

  There is strong WG consensus for this document by all those who have
  actively participated in the group.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  There are some references to outdated versions of drafts.
  They should be updated at 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.

  N/A

(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?

  There are normative references to several other CLUE drafts.
  The intent is that these will all progress together.

  There is also a normative reference to
  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-24. That draft is
  itself near to completion. Waiting on it is acceptable.

(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.

  There are no downrefs.

(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.

  This document doesn't change the status of any other document.

(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 section is in good order.

(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.

  N/A - no new registries are defined.

(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.