Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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 will be a
Standard track  RFC, This document specifies how an RTP session can contain RTP
Streams   with media from multiple media types such as audio, video, and text. 
It updates RF3550 and RFC3551.The type is indicated in the title page

(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
specifies how an RTP session can contain RTP Streams  with media from multiple
media types such as audio, video, and text.  This has been restricted by the
RTP Specification, and thus this  document updates RFC 3550 and RFC 3551 to
enable this behavior for  applications that satisfy the applicability for using
multiple media   types in a single RTP session.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough? The document was discussed in the meetings and on the
mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there are no open issues,
there was consensus on the content of the document.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

This document is not a protocol, this work was done based on input from RTCWEB
WG and vendors will support it. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is
the Responsible Area Director? Roni Even is the Document Shepherd. The
responsible AD is Ben Campbell. (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 document shepherd reviewed the document in previous
and current version and found it ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? The document had good reviews during its
progress  and had good enough reviews during the WGLC.

(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 need

(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 authors confirmed.

(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 (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? The WG understand the document
and agree with it.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues
(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,
there are two WG documents that are in a clear state. (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. There are
none (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. This document updates RFC3550 and RFC3551, mentioned in the
abstract and the introduction and listed on the title page. (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). No IANA action

(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 action (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 need