The document shepherd is Shida Schubert. The responsible Area Director is Ben Campbell.
(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?
- Proposed Standard
- The title page header indicates that it is a standard-track.
- The document defines a process/mechanism for standard defined in XRBLOCK WG to be referenced/used by WebRTC WG in W3C.
(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 document describes monitoring features related to media streams in Web real-time communication (WebRTC). It provides a list of RTCP Sender Report, Receiver Report and Extended Report metrics, which may need to be supported by RTP implementations in some diverse environments.
For each of the metrics proposed, the document provides rational along with consideration when using them.
Working Group Summary:
A lot of effort went into how to ensure proposed metrics are referenced and used by WebRTC WG in W3C. There were no objection or questions about the usefulness of the metrics proposed but more so about ensuring
implementors are aware and take full advantage of the metrics.
Initially a creating a registry was agreed to be the right way forward but after much debates, in order for better exposure to the implementing community, it was agreed that metrics defined in IETF are to be added to the
specification within W3C and for this document to define initial proposed metrics along with how to add/expose future metrics useful to the WebRTC WG and surrounding community.
The defined metrics here are already part of the W3C documents and the metrics proposed to be used by WebRTC are implemented and used in the wild.
The document shepherd is Shida Schubert.
(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 has read the draft and is confident that this document is ready for publication.
(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 took place.
We had contributors from OPS area and W3C folks beside the usual reviewers in XRBLOCK contributing to development of this document.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Irrelevant as no IPR disclosures have been 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?
The WG as a whole understand and agree with the current standing of specification.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summaries 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.)
There was nothing except for the format of the document that raised extensive discussions. Current form of this document is the format that the Work group agreed will provide the most value to the impelemtors.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ <http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section
2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist <https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist> for how to handle the case
when there are no actions for IANA.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 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 completion?
No problem here.
(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.
(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).
(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.
No nits error