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 will be a
standard track RFC, the document updates RFC5761 which is a standard track RFC.
The type is indicated on 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: Technical Summary: This document
updates RFC 5761 by clarifying the SDP offer/answer negotiation of RTP and
RTCP multiplexing. It makes it clear that an answerer can only include an
"a=rtcp-mux" attribute in an SDP answer if the associated SDP offer contained
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough? The document was discussed in the meetings, and on the
mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues,
there was consensus on the content of the document.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted? The document clarifies some text in RFC5761
based also on implementation experience. Personnel: Who is the Document
Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even is the Document
Shepherd. The responsible AD is Ben Campbell. (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 reviewed the document in
previous and current versions and found it ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews before and
during the WGLC. The comments during the WGLC were addressed.
(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. None.
(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. 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? Yes. The authors confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There
are none. (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
understand the document and agree with it.
(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
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None are needed
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? There are only normative references. (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 (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. There are none (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. This document updates
RFC5761 and it is mentioned in the title page, in the abstract and the
introduction sections. (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). No IANA considerations
(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 IANA 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. None were needed