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 24 February 2012.
(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?
RFC Type: Proposed Standard.
This document defines a new feedback message to allow requesting one or more layered streams to be refreshed. It complements RFC5104 which only defines a Full Intra Request (FIR).
(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:
This document specifies a new RTCP payload-specific feedback mssage to allow a receiver of a layered media stream to request one or more of its substreams to be refereshed without requiring the entire stream to be refreshed. This new message can be used for both temporally and spatially scaled streams. This document also defines its use with several RTP payloads for scalable media formats.
Working Group Summary:
The WG is happy with current version. No technical comments are received.
The document got some reviews from AVT experts, and enough discussions during the meetings. There exist widely deployed implementations of the FIR message specified in RFC5104. This draft introduces a new request for layered codecs either spatially or temporally to avoid unnecessary information obtained by FIR. This is expected to be a very useful implementation when used with scaled streams, for example, streams with H.264 SVC.
Document Shepherd: Rachel Huang
Responsible AD: Ben Campell
(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.
As the Document Shepherd, I have carefully reviewed the version 05 being forwarded to IESG. In my opinion, it accurately reflects the consensus of the working group and is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
This document has a security consideration chapter. Mainly the security concerns are covered by RFC5104. But still particular reviews regarding security may be required.
(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.
There are no such issues.
(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?
I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the 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?
WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Checked with the idnits tool. No ID nits found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such a formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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).
The document defines two IANA registrations. One is a new value for “FMT Values for PSFB Payload Types”; another is a new value to the “Codec Control Messages” subregistry of SDP parameters. They are all described correctly.
(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 new registries are defined.
(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 such formal language is used in this document.