I'd like to request that draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01,
"RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) for Bytes Discarded
Metric", be published as a Standard Track RFC.
I have reviewed the draft in detail and XRBLOCK working
group was given plenty of opportunity to comment through
The contents of this document previously belonged to
draft-ietf-xrblock-xr-discard-rle-metrics [RFC7097]. Towards the end
of the IESG review, a point was made that during PM-DIR review,
Alan Clark raised a point that the two metrics that were originally covered
in RFC7097 should indeed be in a separate document. So that
implementers are not bound to implement two different metrics to
claim compliance to the RFC.
After a discussion at the IETF87, the WG decided to take out the text
regarding discarded-metric for the benefit of implementers into a
separate draft which is the draft mentioned in this publication request.
The contents of this document hasn't been changed in any technical
form since it was separated from RFC7097, this was confirmed by
few WG members during the WGLC and by me.
** Proto-Writeup *******************
Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01.txt
(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 document is being requested as a Standards Track RFC.
The document defines one new Extended Report (XR)
Report Block [RFC 3611] and standards track is appropriate for this document.
Standards Track is indicated in the title page.
(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:
This draft defines a new block type to augment those defined in
[RFC3611] for use in a range of RTP applications. The new block type
supports the report computing the bytes discarded from the
de-jitter buffer after successful reception.
Working Group Summary
There were several points of debate within the working group; however,
none were particularly rough and authors and commentators came up
with the text that resolves any issues thus consensus was achieved in
This document has been reviewed by numerous people within
XRBLOCK through three rounds of WGLCs (Including
two that took place when it was part of RFC7097) the document
resolved any outstanding issues.
The document has been reviewed by SDP directorate post WGLC
for SDP extensions defined, any issues raised were resolved.
The document has been reviewed by PM-DIR and the existence
of this document addresses the issue raised (separating this document
Shida Schubert is the Document Shepherd.
Gonzalo Camarillo 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
I have reviewed the last two iterations of this document in previous form
(part of RFC7097) and two iterations in its current form, including providing
technical and editorial review comments during the WGLC reviews.
All of my comments and that of others provided during WGLC are addressed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
(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
There are no concerns.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
Yes, 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.)
(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
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews are required for this document.
(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 (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(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.
(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).
Appropriate reservations have been included for IANA registries.
(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.
(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.