Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Writeup for draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-17

(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 document is informational as it is describing the general workings
of monitoring in RTP. It does discuss how some identified issues for how
is prefered to be extended by the WG. BCP status was discussed but had
no significant support in the WG.

(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 memo describes the extensible RTP monitoring framework for
   using RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) with new RTCP Extended
   Reports (XR) block type to report new metrics regarding media
   transmission or reception quality.  In this framework, any new XR block
   should contain a single metric or a small number of metrics relevant
   to a single parameter of interest or concern, rather than containing
   a number of metrics which attempt to provide full coverage of all
   those parameters of concern to a specific application.  Applications
   may then "mix and match" to create a set of blocks which covers their
   set of concerns.  Where possible, a specific block should be designed
   to be re-usable across more than one application, for example, for
   all of voice, streaming audio and video.

Working Group Summary

  This document was jointly last called with XRBLOCK WG, one of
  the primary consumer of these architectural considerations. It was
  significantly rewritten as the result of the AD review as it didn't
  meet the goals of an architecture specificaiton, and was more focused
  on the issues which the WG had come to consensus on. The changes
  has been WG last called and consensus exist for moving forward
  with these changes.

Document Quality

  There are ongoing usage of the principles for extensions described in
  this document within the XRBLOCK WG. The document has been reviewed
  by a number of people in both AVTCORE and XRBLOCK WG. The AD found
  a significant scope problem which has been resolved.


  Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area
  Director is Robert Sparks

(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 reviewed the document very carefully in version -09 prior to
the WG last call. He has since reviewed the changes with each new version.
The WG last call and the changes after the WG last call has been verified
with the WG before requesting publication. The AD provided feedback
resulting in significant changes that has been reviewed and discussed on
the mailing list. Those changes has then be called consensus on. Before
requesting publication a second time.

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

No, this document has gotten reasonably good levels of review.

(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 has taken place beyond the one from XRBLOCK WG as the
main consumers of the document.

(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 shepherd has confirmed with all authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR disclosures.

(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?

It is fairly wide consensus with clearly review from more individuals
than just the usual suspects.

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

ID-nits tool lists two issues with outdated I-D references. But that is
due to passage of time since submission 20 days ago.

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

No formal review required for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Only informative references used.

(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 normative 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.


(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.

No change to other documents already published.

(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).

As this document doesn't define any protocol, nor registry etc there is
no need for any IANA actions.

(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.


(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.

No formal language.