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?
The intended status is Proposed Standard.
(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 Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) framework provides support
for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video, text,
and other media between two peers' web-browsers. This
document describes the media transport aspects of the WebRTC framework.
It specifies how the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in
the WebRTC context, and gives requirements for which RTP features,
profiles, and extensions need to be supported.
Working Group Summary
The document passed initial WG last call at version 14, with an
outstanding issue about FEC remaining; that has since been split
into a new document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec). Between that draft and
this there were also additional comments on video orientation and
media stream identification which resulted in new text. I do not believe
there were areas where consensus is particularly rough at this point.
Document Quality
There are multiple implementations of the WebRTC framework
and they generally interoperate. The review of the draft by the
working group was adequate, if prolonged. It should be noted
that some less-used aspects of RTP processing are well-understood
by only a small number of participants, but the related matters
appear to be resolved.
Personnel
Ted Hardie is the Document Shepherd. Richard Barnes 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.
The document shepherd re-read the document, re-reviewed the diffs
in the chain back to WGLC, and re-reviewed the relevant mailing list
discussions.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
As noted above, some aspects of RTP processing are relatively little
used and review of their applicability to the WebRTC context was
occasionally limited. Both authors are, however, noted experts in
this and the working group members with experience concurred
with the decisions made for those issues.
(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.
As the IESG is aware, this document describes the RTP usage
of a system which expects multi-participant, multi-stream, heterogenous
usage of both media and data channels. In that context, congestion
control is an obvious concern, and the IESG chartered RMCAT to
focus on this and related issues. The current document
mandates the use of a fairly limited congestion control mechanism
(circuit breakers, specified in draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers)
as well describing additional limitations for both legacy systems
and specific topologies. The working group and chairs believe
that the result is appropriate given what can currently be achieved.
Further review of this point is expected, but we encourage the IESG
to work with reviewers who are aware of the RMCAT work and understand
the general ecosystem.
(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.
The document shepherd has not issues of this type with this 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.
They have so confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There are no IPR disclosures directly filed for this document.
(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 WG consensus is strong, but the expertise on all aspects of this
subject is variable. As a result, there is some deference to those with
extensive experience.
(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.)
The document shepherd is not aware of any threatened appeal or
similar discontent.
(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.
There is one stale reference: draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation-00
is mentioned but a -04 is available.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document contains now requests to IANA nor does it specify
a MIB, so the relevant formal reviews are not required.
(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?
There are normative references to multiple documents which are works in
progress, but these are already in progress in the relevant working groups.
(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 downrefs have been identified.
(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, this will not change the state 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 makes no request of IANA.
(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.
This document makes no request of IANA.
(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.
This document does not use any formal language.