As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is 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?
(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:
The Session Description Protocol (SDP) has a general framework for
endpoints to indicate and negotiate capabilities within SDP. However,
the base framework defines capabilities for negotiating transport
protocols and attributes. In this document, the SDP capability
negotiation framework is extended with the ability to additionally
indicate and negotiate media types and their associated parameters.
Working Group Summary
The first version of the document is dating February 2007. Since
then, the MMUSIC working group has been progressing the document
until getting satisfied with the current version.
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 document has been reviewed and contributed by many participants
of the working group, among others: Culleng Jennings, Christer
Holmberg, Matt Lepinski, Joerg Ott, Colin Perkins, Thomas Stach,
Ingemar Johansson, Andrew Allen, and Magnus Westerlund.
The document was first WGLCed on version 10 (July 2010) and subsequently
on version 14 (July 2012). All the open issues have been addressed
and the WG has got consensus on version 15.
Miguel Garcia is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo is the
Responsible Area Director.
(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 Document Shepherd has reviewed version 13 and the requested (minor) changes introduced in versions 14 and 15.
(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 widely reviewed throughout the time.
(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
There is no need for this type of reviews.
(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
The Document Shepherd is satisfied with the document. There are no
(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, authors have confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosure has
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is one IPR disclosure #829 submitted. The mailing list was
informed on April 4th, 2007. There has not been any e-mail discussion
regarding this IPR disclosure.
(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?
The document represents a solid consensus from the WG. It is believed
that the WG as a whole understand and agrees with it.
(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, no such threat exists.
(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
IDnits reports no issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such review is required in this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, all references are classified 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 completion?
There is no such dependency
(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 downward normative references.
(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 updates RFC 5939, just because an existing registry,
initially created by RFC 5939, is modified and updated by this
document. The actual extensions defined by this document do not update
(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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations
section. The aim of the section is clear and well done.
(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.
None such registries require Expert Review.
(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.
The Document Shepherd has validated the ABNF with the BAP
parser. BAP indicates a few suggestions to improve the readability of
the ABNF. The ABNF seems to be correct.