As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(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?
Experimental.
The draft was originally developed with the intention of bringing it
to Proposed Standard, but interest waned and the WG was uncertain that
it met all the use-cases for which it was developed. However, the WG
thought that it was better to publish it as Experimental, to document
the work that had been done and to support any implementations that
had been made, rather than simply abandon the document (especially as
there are documents in the IETF editor's queue with reference
dependencies on it.)
(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 describes a Frame Marking RTP header extension used to
convey information about video frames that is critical for error
recovery and packet forwarding in RTP middleboxes or network nodes.
It is most useful when media is encrypted, and essential when the
middlebox or node has no access to the media decryption keys. It is
also useful for codec-agnostic processing of encrypted or unencrypted
media, while it also supports extensions for codec-specific
information.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been under development for quite some time, the
first version having been published in 2015; this is why its draft
name refers to the AVTExt working group, which was merged back into
AVTCore in 2017.
There have been multiple WGLCs carried out in the AVTCore working
group, which gave thorough review to the document.
Document Quality:
The specification was implemented for some time in libwebrtc and
deployed in Google Chrome's WebRTC stack; however, Chrome later
removed support for it, as its applicability seemed to be limited.
The document has been reviewed by WG members, and appears to be
complete insofar as it goes; however, there are concerns that it is
not sufficient for the uses cases for which it was intended.
Notably, the significantly more complex AV1 Dependency Descriptor
[https://aomediacodec.github.io/av1-rtp-spec/#appendix] addresses a
similar use-case much more thoroughly.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The document shepherd is Jonathan Lennox; the responsible area
director is Murray Kucherawy.
(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, and feels it is ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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.
None.
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Two IPR declarations have been filed on the document; they were
mentioned to the working group, and no concerns were raised.
(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?
Consensus involved most of the group's active participants.
(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.
No nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 8126).
The IANA registration of a header extension is correct. No new registries are
created.
(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.
N/A.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
N/A.