PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-07.txt
To be Published as: Informational
Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on Sept. 10, 2013
(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 requested to be published as Informational. This is the proper
type of RFC as it defines no new protocol elements nor does it require any IANA
registrations. This RFC type is indicated on the title page.
(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 the most typical and important use cases
for sending multiple streams in a telepresence conference. Telepresence
conferencing systems seek to create an environment that gives non co-located
users or user groups a feeling of co-located presence through multimedia
communication including at least audio and video signals of high fidelity. A
number of techniques for handling audio and video streams are used to create
this experience. When these techniques are not similar, interoperability
between different systems is difficult at best, and often not possible.
Conveying information about the relationships between multiple streams of media
would allow senders and receivers to make choices to allow telepresence systems
to interwork.
Working Group Summary:
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
document?
This document is a product of the CLUE WG. There was no controversy
with regards to adopting this document as a WG document. The document has been
thoroughly reviewed by the CLUE WG participants and is deemed ready
for publication.
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?
The intent of this document is to highlight key uses cases that are
supported in current telepresence systems. The objective within the CLUE
WG is to develop protocols that will support those use cases to enable
more widespread interoperability of telepresence systems. It should also
be noted that a number of these use cases were originally documented
in the IMTC Telepresence Activity Group, that is awaiting the completion
of the CLUE protocol development to progress the interoperability of
telepresence systems. The IMTC chose to bring their original requirements
and use cases as input to the work in the IETF, recognizing IETF
as the SDO that should be doing the standards development. There are a
number of key vendors in the telepresence industry that plan to
implement the CLUE WG series of specifications.
Lennard Xiao reviewed the document and suggested (and provided some text)
for the telemedicine use case, which is an important use case
for current telepresence systems. Christian Groves has carefully reviewed
several versions of this WG document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Mary Barnes (CLUE WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
Gonzalo Camarillo 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 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.
There are no specific concerns or 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.
Yes.
(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 solid WG consensus behind this document representing the applicable
use cases to be supported by the protocol work to be completed in the CLUE WG.
There was WG consensus, as expressed by key WG contributors, that the document
was ready to progress. 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 2.12.17. There are no errors, nits or
warnings.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No formal reviews other than review in the CLUE WG are required for this
document.
(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.
No.
(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 requires no IANA considerations.
(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.
(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.
No reviews or automated checks were required as this document does
not use any formal language requiring such.