WG Shepherd writeup for "RTCP Extension for Third-party Loss Report"
draft-ietf-avtcore-feedback-supression-rtp-13 to be requested to be
published as proposed standard.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
The Document Shepherd is Magnus Westerlund. He has completely
reviewed 09, and has reviewed all the changes of all the
following versions. He does believe that the document is ready
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
This document has gotten adequate review by WG members, including
key ones. There has not been seen any need for WG external review.
The shepherd has no issue with the amount of review
although more would never hurt.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
No such issues.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
No concerns. There are no IPR disclosures against the WG
document nor, the indiviudal document which the WG one is
(1.e) 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 consensus is strong among a small group of WG participants.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No such opinions voiced.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
Yes, the shepherd has checked the document. There is no formal
review criteria required on this document.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
The references are split. No down-refs appear to exist.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
The IANA sections appears to be consistent and uses existing
regestries to add the extension into them.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
No formal language used.
(1.k) 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:
In a large RTP session using the RTCP feedback mechanism defined in RFC
4585, a feedback target may experience transient overload if some event
causes a large number of receivers to send feedback at once. This
overload is usually avoided by ensuring that feedback reports are
forwarded to all receivers, allowing them to avoid sending duplicate
feedback reports. However, there are cases where it is not recommended
to forward feedback reports, and this may allow feedback implosion.
This memo discusses these cases and defines a new RTCP third-party loss
report that can be used to inform receivers that the feedback target is
aware of some loss event, allowing them to suppress feedback.
Associated SDP signalling is also defined.
Working Group Summary
There is strong consensus among an adequate number of WG
participants on this solution.
There are not yet any reported implementations. The document
has had reasonable review.