(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?
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel is targeted at the Standards track, and this writeup is for Proposed
Standard. This is reflected on the title page and in the data tracker. Note that there is a related
draft: draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol. I recommend that the two drafts be sent to IETF last call
together and be considered by the IESG together.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement WriteUp. Please
provide such a Document Announcement WriteUp. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the
This document specifies the nonmedia data transport aspects of the WebRTC
framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as a generic transport service. It also contains a set of use cases and requirements.
Working Group Summary:
There was early discussion of the stacking order, but there has been no significant
controversy since that was fixed. There have been a number of discussion on how to manage
particular aspects of the larger context (e.g. WebRTClevel congestion control, since SCTP
manages congestion control at the association level) and this has played a part in those, but
not in any way that made it the focus of controversy. There was a late request for additional compatibility with the WebSockets API, which resulted in significant additional text in section 6.4. This has been reviewed in the working group, but additional attention to this text in AD and IESG review may be warranted.
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?\
There are implmentations of previous versions of this document, and we expect updates to
them to the final version. Vendor support seems solid. This document did not require
expert review of the types noted.
The document shepherd is Ted Hardie; the responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.
(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.
This document and its companion document were reread, the IPR tracker consulted, and the
minutes of the most recent meetings (plenary and interim) reviewed. The final changes caused by the additional of the labels were reviewed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews
that have been performed?
I do not have any concerns about the working group reviews to date, nor about the reviews
conducted by SCTP folks or DTLS folks. Because of the complexity of this stack, however, I
remain eager to solicit community review of the whole. The number of working group participants
who actively contributed to more than one aspect of the document was low compared to the
overall size of the group,
There have been implementations of previous versions of this specification, so it is clear that the
whole works, but additional thought on the whole stack from new perspectives would valuable.
(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.
Security review is always welcome. Because portions of the specification rely on work in the
SCTP working group, review of the spec from within that community has already taken place.
(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.
As noted above, the stack appears to be a workable, but additional thinking about the problem
space may eventually yield more elegant approaches. Real world deployment will, I expect,
eventually guide the development of a bis. In the mean time, this should be finished so that the
current state converges.
(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
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG
discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR has been filed on this document, its companion document or the antecedent drafts.
(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 concurs with this approach.
(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 appeal has been threatened nor has extreme discomfort surfaced elsehwere..
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the InternetDrafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.
The document was updated near the draft deadline, as were several documents on which it
depends; as a result, it has a number of stale references to previous versions. There is one
reference to RFC 4347, which has been obsoleted by RFC 6347, but this is an intentional
reference to DTLS 1.0 in preference to a reference to DTLS 1.2. The working group discussed
which version to require and preferred the early version, since it was the most widely
implemented. See the mailing list thread begun here:
http://www.ietf.org/mailarchive/web/rtcweb/current/msg12562.html. As noted in the companion write-up, there is a chance that later discussion may result in a preference for DTLS 1.2 emerging (as time marches on, it will obviously be more prevalent). If that takes place, this adjustment will be needed. There is also a type in the Security considerations "I should" should be "It should", but this did not seem to be worth a re-spin.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does not present the need for these 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
There are normative references to two RTCWEB working group drafts (the security and security-
architecture documents) and to two documents the working group (one in TSVWG: draftietf-
tsvwgsctpndata and on in SCTP: draftietftsvwgsctpdtlsencaps). The working group
documents are moving forward well and should reach the IESG shortly; those outside the working
group have been adopted and are active work items. Until they are approved, this document will
await their references. We are not requesting downrefs for either.
(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 requests for downward 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 does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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 requests an update to an existing registry (SCTP Payload Protocol Identifiers);
the update is not controversial within the working group. Note, however, that there is a change in both the registry pointers and, in some case, the name of the entry, which may cause some further discussion.
(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
This document does not request 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
This document does not use a formal grammar of this type.