> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
> 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?
An Informational RFC is being requested. This is indicated on the title
page of the draft. An informational RFC is appropriate, since the draft
provides guidelines for evaluating implementations of congestion control
algorithms. While intended to be useful for implementers and designers of
new algorithms, such evaluation is not needed for interoperability.
> (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 Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
telephony and video conferencing applications. This draft describes
guidelines for how to evaluate new congestion control algorithms for
interactive point-to-point real-time media.
> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
This draft started early in the lifetime of the working group. There was
some extensive discussion leading up to its adoption as a working group
draft at IETF 89. Since then, the scope has gradually narrowed and some
work has been split out into draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test, but there has
been little controversy - slow progress has been rather a sign that the
group has focussed on congestion control algorithm design, rather than
on revising the evaluation criteria.
> 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?
No media type, MIB doctor, or similar expert review needed. The working
draft has seen several evaluations of congestion control algorithms such
as NADA and SCReAM, and these have been based on the evaluation criteria
described in this draft, and in the other evaluation drafts. The criteria
seem mature and have been implemented.
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The shepherd is Colin Perkins. The responsible area directory is Mirja
> (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.
Colin Perkins reviewed the draft for WG last call in July 2018, finding
a reasonable number of nits. The only major concern was the lack of a
security considerations section; this was discussed in following RMCAT
meetings and the draft revised.
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. The draft has received extension review and implementation
over many years.
> (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.
The draft focusses on evaluation of congestion control algorithms. The
RMCAT WG has appropriate experience to evaluate this. There is nothing
needing specialist review from other areas.
> (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.
> (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.
All authors have confirmed that no IPR declarations are needed.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures filed.
> (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 consensus.
> (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 such discontent.
> (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
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> (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?
All normative references are to RFCs or drafts already submitted for
> (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 such 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.
No such updates.
> (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 8126).
No IANA actions needed.
> (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.
No IANA actions needed.
> (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.