Writeup for draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-03
(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 is request to have the document be published as a proposed standard.
This is the appropriate type as it replaces the existing proposed
standard in RFC 6222. Which also was appropriate as this specifies a
protocol functionality.
(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
The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a
persistent transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint. While the
Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may
change if a collision is detected or when the RTP application is
restarted, its RTCP CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP
endpoints can be uniquely identified and associated with their RTP
media streams.
For proper functionality, RTCP CNAMEs should be unique within the
participants of an RTP session. However, the existing guidelines for
choosing the RTCP CNAME provided in the RTP standard are insufficient
to achieve this uniqueness. RFC 6222 was published to update those
guidelines to allow endpoints to choose unique RTCP CNAMEs.
Unfortunately, later investigations showed that some parts of the new
algorithms were unnecessarily complicated and/or ineffective. This
document addresses these concerns and replaces RFC 6222.
Working Group Summary
The requirements for this replacement of RFC 6222 came from RTCWEB WG,
which identified the linkability and privacy issue of the previous
random method. There was strong WG consensus to address this issue. The
method of addressing it, using a cryptographic random number generator,
was obvious. The main concern in WG last call has been around the
clarity of the motivation for the update.
Document Quality
The Shepherd assumes that this will see significant implementation,
especially initially in any WebRTC implementations. The document has
gotten a fair amount of reviews in the WG last call.
Personnel
Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd.
Richard Barnes 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
the IESG.
The Shepherd has reviewed the document in WG last call and tracked the
changes afterwards. For the writeup the chair has reviewed the draft
again for each item in the I-D checklist.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
At the originally stated WG last call dead-line the number of reviews
where less than minimal. After some prodding a bit more reviews where
received. Sufficient to make the shepherd comfortable with publishing
this replacement.
(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.
No, if anything it would be to verify that the security goals has been
meet. That appears clear from the shepherd's point of view so no
additional review has been requeted. The Shepherd assumes a sec-dir
review will happen to further verify that nothing obvious has been
missed.
(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.
All authors have confirmed that they are in conformance.
(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 was present in the database on the 2013-04-24.
(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?
There is a fairly wide agreement on doing this update. The people who
reviewed or contributed to the details are much more some few
individuals.
(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.
No ID nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such review has been deemed necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
One of the informative references [I-D.rescorla-avtcore-random-cname]
was a motivation for doing this work, and is not intended to be
published.
(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.
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.
Yes, this will obsolete RFC 6222. That is noted in header, abstract and
introduction.
(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).
This document updates possible ways of generating CNAMES. As they are
source only options and opaque strings for any receiver their are no
need to register them. Thus no IANA action necesary as noted by IANA
consideration section.
(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 entries.
(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.
ID-Nits, but no other formal languages present.