Shepherd writeup
rfc7164-08

This is the write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06

(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?

The requested status is Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it 
gives recommendation that in some cases override the behaviors specified 
RFC 3550 which it updates.

(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 discusses issues that arise when RTP sessions span
   Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) leap seconds.  It updates RFC 3550
   to describe how RTP senders and receivers should behave in the
   presence of leap seconds.

Working Group Summary

  There has solid consensus in the AVTCORE WG to do this work.
  The WG process has been making good progress with a reasonable
  amount of persons involved in reviewing and commenting on the
  document. 

Document Quality

  There has been several reviewers that combined make the Shepherd
  convinced that this document has no substantiative issues. First 
  Colin Perkins has reviewed the RTP/RTCP recommendations. Then 
  Art Allison and John Fletcher has reviewed and commented on the 
  time and clock aspects of this document. The shepherd is not yet 
  aware of any implementation of this specification. 


Personnel
  
  Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd and Richard Barnes
  the responsible AD. 

  
(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 during WG last call. In the process 
of performing this write-up he reviewed the draft against the ID-Checklist. 
Also verified the result of the ID-Nits checks tools. 


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

No, it has been sufficient. 


(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 special review appears necessary. 

(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 such 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.

Both authors have confirmed that they have no IPR undisclosed.  


(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 disclosures have been made.


(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?   

Strong among a smaller number of 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.

The ID checklist has been gone through and issues have been found that 
has been requested to be corrected.

The ID-nits tools flags the following.

     (Using the creation date from RFC3550, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2001-11-20)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. 
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

This appears to not be relevant as no text from RFC 3550 has been cited 
and modified in this update.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No need for formal review. 


(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?

No such references. 


(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 downward references.


(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.

It updates RFC 3550. This is clear 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).

There are no IANA actions needed. This has been verified by shepherd's
review of the full document. 


(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 IANA registries created. 

(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.

Noting beyond ID-nits and IPR disclosure search. 
Back