Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology
draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-17

Draft Name: draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-16
Draft File Location:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-speermint-terminology-16.
txt
Proposed Status: Informational RFC

================================================================
WG Name: speermint
WG Area: RAI
WG Co-Chairs: Jason Livingood & Daryl Malas
Document Shepherd: Jason Livingood
Shepherding AD: Jon Peterson

================================================================
Document Shepherd Write-Up:
1A. Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
--Jason Livingood

1B. Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
--Yes

2A. Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and
from key non-WG members?
--Yes

2B. Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
--No

3 - Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs
more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization,
or XML?
--No

4A. Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues 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.
--No

4B. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so,
please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG
discussion and conclusion on this issue.
--No, an IPR disclosure has not been filed.

5 - 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?
--Strong consensus, no outstanding objections. Any objections raised
have been resolved.

6 - Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID
Tracker.)
--No

7A. Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.
--Yes

7B. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?
--Yes

7C. If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the
top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
--Intended status is Informational RFC

8A. Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
--Yes

8B. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
--No

8C. If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
completion?
--N/A

8D. Are there normative references that are downward references, as
described in [RFC3967]?
--No

8E. If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
--N/A

9A. Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the
document?
--Yes

9B. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations
requested in appropriate IANA registries?
--N/A

9C. Are the IANA registries clearly identified?
--N/A

9D. If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed
initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future
registrations?
--N/A

9E. Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[RFC2434].
--N/A

9F. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
--N/A

10 - Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document
that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules,
MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?
--Yes, N/A in this document.

================================================================
Document Announcement Write-Up:

1 - Technical Summary
This document defines the basic terminology that is to be used in
describing Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (SPEERMINT).

2 - Working Group Summary
There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Several Working
Group Last Calls have been issued, and we have finally achieved
consensus and resolved all concerns. All changes suggested by the WG
have been made to this draft. A NITS review has also been performed by
our secretary, and those changes made as well.

3 - Document Quality
There are no protocol implementations proposed, only terminology. The
new terms and now consistently in use across all SPEERMINT documents.

4 - Personnel
Document Shepherd: Jason Livingood
Responsible AD: Jon Peterson
IANA Experts Required: No