(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?
Informational. The document specifies requirements for real-time media congestion control and thus is informational for congestion control designers and a basis for the evaluation of these algorithms.
(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 documents describes requirements for real-time media congestion control. With the standardization of RTCweb, an increasing amount of real-time media is expected in the Internet and thus it's important that this traffic is congestion controlled. Real-time media traffic has quite different requirements on congestion control than most the other Internet traffic. The requirements are listed in this document to develop and, later, evaluate one or more congestion control schemes that are more suitable to real-time media traffic than today's existing schemes.
Working Group Summary:
There was quite a lot discussion in the working group on how to define fairness (mainly in respect to evaluation criteria document). For this document the working group concluded to leave the definition of fairness open (to the evaluation criteria document). Only self-fairness was defined (as roughly equal bandwidth). Further there was a discussion on RTT-fairness. This was added as an optional requirement ("if possible").
Additionally this document address requirements to handle different RTP stream multiplexed into one connection (5-tuple) or different DSCP marking within one connection. Those points where discussed on the RTPweb as well as on the rmcat mailing list.
As an outcome of the WGLC and IESG Review process additional text on deficiencies of existing mechanisms discussing TFRC as well as further details on jitter and interactions with circuit breakers have been added. To timely address the comments an (additional) editor has been added. Updates have been announced to the working group and no further obligations were received.
This document is an informational requirements document, therefore there is of course no implementation related to this.
The document received several rounds of reviews in total of 10 different persons (incl. 4 in WGLC and 2 from people mainly working in RTCweb) leading to discussions with even more people involved. These discussions led to several additions and smaller modification to the requirements.
The document contains one normative reference to an RTCweb working group document that is as know to the shepherd is close to publication.
As there is no requirements language in this document, the section on requirements language could be removed.
The structuring of the requirements could still be improved to enhance readability. However, the technical content is well addressed.
Mirja Kuehlewind (firstname.lastname@example.org) is Docoment Shepherd and one of the rmcat working group chairs.
Spencer Dawkins <email@example.com> 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 IESG.
I briefly reviewed the first version of this w-g doc (-00) to be able to contribute to the discussion on the mailing list. Further I performed a detailed review during wglc (-02) and have been sending it to the mailing list. Further I reviewed the version (-04) to check if various WGLC comments from different reviewers have been addressed. Finial I reread the final (-08) to check if everything is understandable and the open issues have been well addressed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. A sufficient number of reviews for the whole document have been performed addressing all kind of issues regarding the content, completeness, comprehensibility as well as the wording and terminology. Further, an additional document editor has been added to ensure that the review comments have been well addressed.
(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.
This document is informational. I don't see any security or operational issues. In fact I don't think the security consideration section is needed here, as it currently only discusses general issues on congestion control not specific to real-time media congestion control.
The document already received two reviews from the RTCweb working group (in WGLC).
(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.
There are no open issues that are discussed in the working group. From my personal view some sub-bullets in the requirements seems slightly redundant but that doesn't prevent a good understanding of the document.
(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, the authors (incl. the new editor) confirmed that no IPR exists.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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 working group as a whole agreed on this document as this is the basis for further documents.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
All nits have been resolved.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Does not apply.
(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 completion?
Yes. Normative reference to [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]. As far as known by the shepherd, this document is close to publication (in WGCL?) and therefore this should not be an problem. However, alternatively the (few) needed terminology could be integrated into this document and therefore the reference could be removed.
(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 WG considers it unnecessary.
(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).
IANA section exists but no considerations required for this document. Thus should be removed before publication.
(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.
(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.
Does not apply to this document.