(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:
Technical Summary:
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.
Document Quality:
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.
Personnel:
Mirja Kuehlewind (mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch) is Docoment Shepherd and one
of the rmcat working group chairs. Spencer Dawkins
<spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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.
No.
(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.)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 WG 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).
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.
None.
(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.