Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Spencer Dawkins Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-cellar-flac-08

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The WG is very small (6-8 active participants), but pretty much the entire
active part of the WG was involved in the consensus for this document, and the
GitHub repo for this specification shows 11 people who have contributed text to
the document, and discussion of issues and pull requests usually involves 3-5
participants. More WG members spoke than were silent.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

This is my first draft to shepherd in Cellar, and I'm really impressed at how
NOT contentious discussions were, and how NOT rough consensus was.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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.)

Not that I am aware of.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere

There are two independent implementations (libFLAC and libavcodec), plus a list
of implementations, all described in

It's worth noting that one of the challenges for this draft was collecting the
long and broad FLAC implementation history, to minimize the amount of
incompatibility this spec introduces. To give some idea of this constraint,
Windows, Android, MacOS/iOS, and SerinityOS all include FLAC libraries, and
FLAC can be implemented on bare hardware, so incompatibility is not taken

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

FLAC is something of a niche codec - it's intended to provide lossless
compression, with minimal hardware demands, and without encumbered intellectual
property. Most IETF participants who are experts in lossless encoding are
already reviewing FLAC in the working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Spencer Dawkins requested a media-type review for audio/flac on 04-04-2023. We
did get feedback, that the (barely documented) preference is now to consider
adding these two attributes: Windows Clipboard Format Name and Uniform Type

We've added these attributes, with the following values:
Windows Clipboard Format Name: audio/flac
Uniform Type Identifier: org.xiph.flac

Martijn observes that at only about three RFCs include these attributes (RFC
7946, RFC 8790, and RFC 8428), so he is using "Windows Clipboard Format Name"
to match them, instead of "Windows Clipboard Flavour Name", the term used in
the media-types discussion.

Spencer observes that our responsible AD is also one of the designated experts
for the media types IANA registry, so we're sure that the right thing will
happen, given AD Evaluation.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes. The shepherd did a fresh start-to-end review and provided a significant
number of comments, which have been addressed, but these fell into a few
categories - for example, using BCP 14 keywords to state facts. The shepherd
review was posted to the CELLAR mailing list.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent

The ART issues list is not applicable to codecs.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This draft targets IETF stream, Standards Track, and describes how to implement
a technical standard. The datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Spencer has sent a last-step-before-publication-requested email to the authors
on 04-04-23, asking that they confirm this. Both listed authors have confirmed
this. In addition to this, Martijn provided a link to where
Josh Coalson, who held copyright on the original document before FLAC came to
the IETF, has consented to having the original document relicensed from GFDL to
3-clause BSD.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits remain, that I could spot.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The number of Normative references is surprisingly small, but many Informative
references are included to provide a pointer to a well-known and
well-understood technique that this specification supports. What you need to
know, in order to implement this specification, is pretty much described in
this draft.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative

No Normative references are unavailable. Even the Informative references are
freely available, unless they are too old to be present on the Internet (very
few have a publication date more recent than 1999), and several of these
techniques have their own Wikipedia entries, which the working group discussed,
and decided that the Wikipedia entry was sufficient for what an implementer
needed to understand.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Spencer read the IANA Considerations section and discussed suggestions with the

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Not Applicable.