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 1 November 2019.
(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?
This document requests Informational status. This is not the product of a
working group, and the technical work was developed outside of the IETF.
The document’s main purpose is to define the WebP image format and make a
standard media type registration.
(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 defines the WebP image format, and considers its registration
of the media type image/webp.
Working Group Summary:
The document is not a product of a working group, and is sponsored by an
Area Director. Discussion has occurred on the DISPATCH and MEDIA-TYPES
lists.
This document was previously approved by the IESG, but during AUTH48 so
many changes were made that it was decided to send it for a second IETF
Last Call before returning it to the IESG or, possibly, directly to the RFC
Editor queue.
Document Quality:
The document provides detailed specifications for the WebP image format.
Several people have reviewed it and provided useful feedback.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Huapeng Zhou
Responsible Area Director: Murray Kucherawy
(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 did a review of the document and feels it is ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The shepherd does not have any concerns about the level of reviews
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.
The document does not require any particular reviews, given its main
purpose of media type definition and registration. It has had a
preliminary review by a media types designated expert.
(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 shepherd does not have any concern or issue 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?
The sole author has confirmed the above.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosure has been filed referencing that document.
[Area Director note: As of -11, there are five IPR claims asserted by
Google. All of them are accompanied by general licensing terms that do not
encumber implementations. As this is a
sponsored document, there is no WG in which to hold discussion about any
further concerns; AD review stands in place of that requirement.]
(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 document is not a product of a working group, but rather is being
sponsored by an Area Director.
(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.)
No one has threatened to appeal.
(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.
All the nits identified by the shepherd have been addressed or would be
addressed in the next revision per author confirmation.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document only requires review for media type definition and allocation.
A first level of review has been conducted by a media types designated
expert.
(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 two normative references to external Chromium documentation,
which is not subject to IETF change control.
(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.
(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.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any document.
This is correctly identified in the title page header.
(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 8126).
This document does not define any protocol extension. The newly created
IANA registry includes a detailed specification of the initial contents for
the registry, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested.
(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 are created by this document.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
This is not applicable.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
This is not applicable.