Shepherd writeup for Content Splicing for RTP Sessions
(draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-for-rtp-09) resubmitted to be published
as Informational RFC.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Magnus Westerlund is the document shepherd.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has had okay number of reviews in the WG. There has
been no review outside of the WG to my knowledge. No significant
concern over the amount of review.
After the IESG returned the document to the WG with significant amount
of feedback the changes proposed by the editor has been reviewed by at
least two key WG participants and the shepherd before being forward.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
No concerns and no IPR disclosure has been submitted.
(1.e) 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?
There was significant amount of discussion around the direction
of the approach that is recommended. This resulted in the end
a strong consensus and many active WG participants has participated
in that part.
(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
Yes, it has a split list. Although that isn't necessary considering
it is an informational document.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
Yes, it is correct.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
No formal language.
(1.k) 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 memo outlines how to perform RTP splicing. Splicing is a process
that replaces the content of the main multimedia stream with other
multimedia content, and delivers the substitutive multimedia content to
receiver for a period of time. This memo provides some RTP splicing use
cases, then we enumerate a set of requirements and analyze whether an
existing RTP level middlebox can meet these requirements, at last we
provide concrete guidelines for how the chosen middlebox works to handle
Working Group Summary
This document had firm WG consensus behind it and was believed to have
been adequate reviewed. The IESG however had substantial amount of comments
and the document was sent back to the WG. It has been updated and WG last
called again. Reviews of the changes has been done by at least two key-participants.
The shepherd is unaware of any specific implementation but
expect this functionality to be implemented in the field.
How well they follow the proposed method is unknown.