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?
A Proposed Standard RFC is being requested. This document defines
normative behavior for RTP header extensions, RTCP packets, and SDP grouping.
The title page indicates "Standards Track".
(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
Content splicing is a process that replaces the content of a main
multimedia stream with other multimedia content, and delivers the
substitutive multimedia content to the receivers for a period of
time. The splicer is designed to handle RTP splicing and needs to
know when to start and end the splicing.
This memo defines two RTP/RTCP extensions to indicate the splicing
related information to the splicer: an RTP header extension that
conveys the information in-band and an RTCP packet that conveys the
information out-of-band.
Working Group Summary
The document went through a working group last call. There were
comments and the document was updated to resolve all comments.
The use case of this work (multimedia streaming over RTP) is somewhat
distant from the primary expertise of many AVTEXT working group
participants, so a call was specifically put out to constituencies
that would use the work in order to determine interest and
correctness. A number of such constituencies responded that they were
interested in the work.
An IPR declaration was filed late, after the work had been accepted as
a work item of the working group, from the employer of some of the
document's authors. (The authors indicated that the IPR was from a
different area of the company than the one they worked in.) The
working group considered this and decided that this would not block
going forward with the document.
Document Quality
The document got good reviews from several AVTEXT members.
The document was reviewed by the SDP Directorate, and changes were
made following the comments that were received.
There are reports that at least one vendor has begun field trials of
the mechanism.
Personnel
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 IESG.
The document shepherd read the submitted version of the document
fully, as well as reviewing 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
took place.
The document was reviewed by the SDP Directorate, and changes were
made following the comments that were received.
(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.
All of the authors have confirmed that they are aware of no relevant
IPR other than the one declaration that has already been filed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There was one IPR disclosure. The working group considered this IPR
disclosure, and no objections were raised to continuing the work.
(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?
Few members of the working group had direct interest in the use cases
addressed by the document; as mentioned, a call was put out for
broader interest. The document nonetheless got good review from a
number of 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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-02.txt
(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?
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 5226).
The document requests three new entries in existing IANA registries:
in RTCP Control Packet Type, RTP Compact Header Extension, and SDP
Grouping Semantic. This matches the specifications in the draft. 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.
No new registries.
(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.