As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
Proposed Standard; a new family of RTP header extensions is defined,
for which interoperability will be necessary.
(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:
Source Description (SDES) items are normally transported in the RTP
control protocol (RTCP). In some cases it can be beneficial to
speed up the delivery of these items. Mainly when a new source
(SSRC) joins an RTP session and the receivers needs this source's
identity, relation to other sources, or its synchronization
context, all of which may be fully or partially identified using
SDES items. To enable this optimization, this document specifies a
new RTP header extension that can carry SDES items.
Working Group Summary
The document went through working group last call. Several people
commented during last call that they had read the document but had
no issues with its content.
The document got good reviews from AVText members. The document
generalizes a mechanism which is used by the SDP BUNDLE mechanism,
which required for all WebRTC implementations.
The document Shepherd is Jonathan Lennox. The Responsible Area
Director 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 document shepherd read the submitted version of the document
fully, as well as reviewing and commenting on several earlier versions
of the document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document got good review by multiple people from AVText and all
comments were addressed.
(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
No broader reviews are needed.
(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
(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.
All the authors have indicated they no of know relevant IPR on this
(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 have been filed.
(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?
Most of the group's most active (and expert) participants have
indicated agreement with the document. No disagreement was
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Later versions of several informatively-cited documents have been
released since this version of this draft was published. None of
the changes in these versions alter their use in this document; the
versions can be updated after IETF Last Call or by the RFC Editor.
(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 needed.
(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 provides additional constraints for a subspace of the
existing RTP Compact Header Extensions registry. This registry is
Expert Review required, and thus this provides additional guidance to
that registry's experts. The new requirements are clearly specified.
No new registries are defined.
(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 formal language is used in the document.