Shepherd writeup
rfc6642-17

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
        for publication.

  (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 
        this issue. 
        
        No concerns. There are no IPR disclosures against the WG
        document nor, the indiviudal document which the WG one is 
        based on. 

  (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: 

     Technical Summary 
        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. 
        
     Document Quality 
     	There are not yet any reported implementations. The document
     	has had reasonable review. 
     	
Back