Shepherd writeup

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.

Write-up by Magnus Westerlund for 

(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 RFC as indicated in header on first page. Appropriate
due to the nature of it describing use-cases and derived requirements
for the WebRTC system. 

(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

  This document discusses a number of usages of browser based
  real-time communication and data transfer capabilities
  and establish requirements for these usages. The document
  is intended to be used both in IETF and W3C during the 
  development of the WebRTC specifications.

Working Group Summary

  The document has been under development during a longer period
  and a larger number of use cases has been proposed then what 
  is included in the document. These that have been included
  has been considered the most basic, most relevant to core 
  functionality and without significant controversies. 

Document Quality
  There has been some concerns about the structure of the document, 
  but the WG see no significant need to address this. The document
  is requested to be published as a documentation of the 
  core consideration around usages that was of interest during 
  the first part of the WebRTC work. The other expected usage of this 
  document will be to analyze if the resulting protocol solution
  will enable the considered use cases. 
  The document has been reviewed and commented on by a significant
  number of people within the WG, including persons active in the W3C


  Sean Turner is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo Camarillo and 
  Richard Barnes is the Responsible Area Directors.

(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 shepherd has review the document in WG last call and again prior 
to the publication request. Further the I-D checklist has been manually 
checked against the document as well as checking with the ID-Nits tool.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

No, and the shepherd doesn't see a need to apply high requirements
regarding document quality to a use-case and requirements document
like this one. 

(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.

No special review has been considered required. 

(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.

Yes, all authors have confirmed that they conform. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR disclosure 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 a strong consensus and a large number of people have been involved 
with the document. 

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

ID Nits reports this:

  Checking nits according to :

  == There are 6 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

This is a false warning due to section references in the document that contains
4 levels of digits. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are nothing in this document requiring formal review. 

(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?


(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. 

(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 RFC will be affected by this documents publication.

(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 is a use case and requirments document that doesn't define
anything, thus no things specified that requires 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.

No 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.

No formal language present.